@Juney
I read your response to my post a few hours ago, and did not reply immediately to give you a chance to rethink your reply and possibly reword it; I am disappointed that this has not happened...
Quote: "The simplest place to look in Orca is ModuleDependencies, as this will provide IDs that are understandable. You may then follow the links through to the individual components but these will not be "names" you can immediately associate with."
The ModuleDependancies table (according to MSDN
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa370046) "enables a merge or verification tool to ensure that the necessary merge modules are in fact included in the user's installer database. The tool checks by cross referencing this table with the ModuleSignature table in the installer database." and this is exactly as Wix did report.
It does not ensure that the required dependent module is actually a part of the current MSI/MSM file when the install is executed (by msexec.exe). The Files table is the one that actually lists ALL the files that are a part of the MSI/MSM being interrogated.
Quote: "Apart from that no-one would be able to get an APPup validated without them and as more than just me has succeeded now, that also confirms it."
No it doesn't; this is not a definitive means to determine this as fact. It may be that the machine being used to validate had these components already (possibly as part of an automatic windows update patch or by some other means). Maybe they relaxed this requirement for actual validation as too many people had difficulties. The possibilities of any number of alternative reasons abound.
I'm not saying that these extra files are needed for validation success; I was just answering the original posters question of whether the DBPGDKMergeModule.msm file provided by TGC contained these extra files.
Quote: "Are you sure you are just not trying to downgrade the suitability of WarSetup just to promote your own installer. All you appear to be succeeding in is confusing others trying to get their Appup validated."
This was the part that I was most dismayed to read. And although I asked that you not take my comments personally, it seems you did.
Do I want other to use my tool? YES.
Would I disparage other tools or people to accomplish this? NO!
So yes I am sure...are you sure your comments are not just defensive attacks because I disagreed with you? I see no evidence that my information/opinion has "succeeded in confusing others trying to get their Appup validated" (paraphrased). Please show where you apparently see this? (apart from yourself that is; but then you shouldn't be confused as you have already had your app validated right?).
Quote: "Yours will be evaluated on its merits against other installers which clearly work, even if you appear to be unable to accept that."
I am perfectly able to accept it - I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I couldn't.
And I hope my tool is indeed evaluated on its merits. No skin off my nose if it crashes and burns (figuratively that is). I just hope that you are not trying to cast aspersions on my motives because you do not want competition for your "Guide" which I'm sure a lot of hard work went into producing.
Quote: "Good luck with your project but if this is your way of obtaining help to aid your project progression, I think there may be better ways of asking."
I wont comment further on this statement further except to say I will accept your well wishes...
Finally, whether it is my tool, or another (like WarSetup of VS) being used makes no difference on this matter as if the DBPGDKMergeModule.msm file does require those extra dependent files, then the same problem would be encountered by one and all (and indeed, the others are actually more suitable/advanced in this respect than my own tool).
I sincerely hope we can stop this bantering that has apparently started between us, as I'm sure we are both just trying to help out others on this board. If you feel you need to further this "discussion" then please do so; but I hope that that will then be it - I will not be responding like this again.