> I'm confused (probably by not having had to conform to ISO9002 standards).
> In what way is using the Version Info resources on a setup.exe not
> acceptable for determining what exe you are dealing with?

The problem is in a number of cases now I have downloaded library updates that have
the same file name as the one already in the download directory, and you can not
see the Version Info until the file has been downloaded. When it is a 20Mb Netscape
file, it is nice to know it is version 4.77 and you have 4.76 already in the
directory.

I have some 6Mb libraries that keep the same name, and so when they say 'new issue'
every time, you don't know until it has been downloaded that it is actually the one
you already have.

> I thought the ISO standards were pretty fair about defining only the
> functional nature of a requirement and allowing you some flexibility in how
> you meet that requirement. The real sticking points are often whether you
> have that process well documented and whether you follow it in your
> business practices.

Having been hit with problems such as the non-functional gds32.dll with Interbase
5.5 and 5.6, and having to use the copy from 5.1, you soon realise that unless you
can keep track of which version is actually in use ( and Windows does not
necessarily keep the date the same ! ), then you have a problem actually verifying
that an installation meets the documented setup. Especially when Microsoft have
just overritten one of their libraries with a copy that is now incompatible with
Interbase 5.1 ( I forget which one that was now but it took three days to track
down! ).

--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services