It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
muntdefems: And [innoextract 1.7] just made it to the Arch repositories! :D
It’s available in Debian unstable too, maybe in Debian testing soon, so derivatives like Ubuntu and Mint should get it at some point ;)
avatar
vv221: innoextract 1.7 handles the extraction of these new installers.
It only will take some time until this is included in the stable Linux distributions. And it does not solve all the problems.
avatar
vv221: innoextract 1.7 handles the extraction of these new installers.
avatar
eiii: It only will take some time until this is included in the stable Linux distributions.
For most stable distributions, based on Debian releases, we won’t see this version until next year…
For Ubuntu LTS it would be even worse, as there will be no innoextract 1.7 before 2020!
avatar
vv221: innoextract 1.7 handles the extraction of these new installers.
avatar
eiii: It only will take some time until this is included in the stable Linux distributions. And it does not solve all the problems.
If you wish, I can send you a portable version of 1.7 which works on Ubuntu 16.04+ with the required libraries. No system integration, unzip and run.
Post edited July 08, 2018 by Ganni1987
avatar
Ganni1987: If you wish, I can send you a portable version of 1.7 which works on Ubuntu 16.04+ with the required libraries. No system integration, unzip and run.
Thank you for the offer! Meanwhile I've tried to install the package from Debian unstable and it seems to work on stable too. At the moment I try to find out what the --gog switch actually does, as I do not see any differences with or without it. Any hints?
avatar
Ganni1987: If you wish, I can send you a portable version of 1.7 which works on Ubuntu 16.04+ with the required libraries. No system integration, unzip and run.
avatar
eiii: Thank you for the offer! Meanwhile I've tried to install the package from Debian unstable and it seems to work on stable too. At the moment I try to find out what the --gog switch actually does, as I do not see any differences with or without it. Any hints?
I'm not 100% sure but I think the --gog switch applies to installers with multiple parts (the .bin files). Maybe someone with more experience than me can confirm this.
avatar
eiii: At the moment I try to find out what the --gog switch actually does, as I do not see any differences with or without it. Any hints?
This one is needed to extract all data from the old Windows installers using encrypted RAR archives. On other installers, it has no effect.
avatar
eiii: At the moment I try to find out what the --gog switch actually does, as I do not see any differences with or without it. Any hints?
avatar
vv221: This one is needed to extract all data from the old Windows installers using encrypted RAR archives. On other installers, it has no effect.
Thanks for the explanation!

Is there any way to check with innoextract 1.7 if an installer is of the old or the new style, i.e. if it contains full files or only file slices?
avatar
eiii: Is there any way to check with innoextract 1.7 if an installer is of the old or the new style, i.e. if it contains full files or only file slices?
if you use the --no-gog-galaxy option then galaxy parts won't be re-assembled. So if the output with that option matches the output without that option than it is an "old style installer".
avatar
eiii: Is there any way to check with innoextract 1.7 if an installer is of the old or the new style, i.e. if it contains full files or only file slices?
avatar
immi101: if you use the --no-gog-galaxy option then galaxy parts won't be re-assembled. So if the output with that option matches the output without that option than it is an "old style installer".
Oh, I completely have ignored this option. It sounded like it is for the old installers which include a Galaxy installation. Thanks!
Hmmm... is this form an un-updated relic from the past? Or am I really an "other" user in the eyes of GOG? :\
avatar
muntdefems: Hmmm... is this form an un-updated relic from the past? Or am I really an "other" user in the eyes of GOG? :\
tbh i am more annoyed that the question about "micro-transactions" even allows "yes" as an answer *sigh*
avatar
immi101: tbh i am more annoyed that the question about "micro-transactions" even allows "yes" as an answer *sigh*
As long as an affirmative answer triggers an automatic rejection, I'm fine with it. :P