Nov 14, 2014 Removing Microsoft Office Lync 2013 silent. Ask Question 0. I want to remove Microsoft Lync (silent) from all the client computers in our domain. 'C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedOFFICE15Office Setup Controllersetup.exe' /uninstall LYNCENTRY /dll OSETUP.DLL /config c:tempconfiguninstallLyncBasic.xml.
I desire to remove Microsoft Lync (muted) from all the customer computer systems in our domains.
I've already tried eliminating it with the 'msiexec-command', but after that the entire office got a problem with the other applications.
So I just desired to question if there would become some additional recommendations to uninstall Lync.
pnuts50.1k77 money badges6464 sterling silver badges102102 bronze badges
consumer3464419consumer3464419
1 Response
Where
chemical:tempconfiguninstallLyncBasic.xml
looks like this:Here can be the official referencehttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/collection/jj205129.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/collection/jj204651.aspx
skuntsel10.8k99 magic badges3838 magic badges6262 bronze badges
HardomanHardoman
Not the solution you're also searching for? Browse other queries marked lync or inquire your personal question.
Sign up for GitHub today
GitHub can be house to over 36 million programmers working collectively to sponsor and examine code, control projects, and build software together.
Sign upPossess a query about this task?Sign up for a free GitHub accounts to open up an problem and contact its maintainers and the area.
By hitting “Signal up for GitHub”, you concur to our conditions of support and privacy declaration. We'll sometimes send you account related emails.
Currently on GitHub? Indication in to your account
Responses
left a commentMight 9, 2016
Because cachedir isn'capital t used for package elimination, an uninstaller that wants a config document must rely on the install process getting cached it, and the cache staying intact. As an example for installing and uninstalling Microsoft Workplace:
Uninstallation will fail if 'SilentUninstall.xml' is definitely not existing. Since the directory website is not really cached again, this document may or may not really exist when the uninstall procedure is run. Tested on 2015.8.8-2. |
commentedMight 10, 2016
@morganwillcock I think this is definitely a great approach to make certain we cache these files to assure an uninstall is accessible. @twangboy perform you think this is usually the right approach and can be feasible? |
commentedMay 10, 2016
I would of thought that component of a state file would be deployment of the construction file and after that pkg.install (or get rid of) would be conditional on it. Because the git repo (pkg's definitions) requires to be universal, if something is usually more specific it would be replicated and called something else. |
commentedMay 10, 2016
It can't depend on a condition because that indicates it can't be run on-demand making use of the delivery module (would appear to make winpkg redundant), plus cachepath isn't obtainable as an atmosphere adjustable or a hemp so you are going to end up tough coding matching file pathways in the condition and the bundle description. There is usually furthermore the security problem of operating unverified documents or constructions as SYSTEM when you operate an uninstaller, if you aren't positively looking at the hash beforehand. I'm not making use of the git repos, SilentUninstall.xml would become rendered or duplicated via syndic. |
mentionedMight 12, 2016
I chatted with @twangboy and we chose this would become an appropriate feature request, although he needs to believe through on how to approach this. I'll content label it a feature request and he has designated it to himself to discover a remedy to this request. Thanks |
includedFunctionHome windowsSystemand removedPending ConversationbrandsMay 12, 2016
added this to the Approved landmarkMight 12, 2016
includedTEAM SystemSub-TaskZRELEASED - 2017.7.0rd1brandsAugust 18, 2016
referenced this problemFeb 13, 2017
Shutpkg.eliminated state falters with implicit bundle edition#34821
mentionedFeb 14, 2017 .modified by ghost
modified by ghost
Simply some discourse. To offer with workplace 2013, I do the right after: Notice that the the installers are automatically place on the G: commute for you. My repo ng documents appear like this: and And insofar as I can remember, for ms 2016, if you place the config.xml document in the installer dir, the Workplace 2016 installer will instantly copy it over to G:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedOFFICE16Office Setup Controller. In otherwords, as I find it, sodium doesnotpossess to deal with this file for Workplace 2016. I wonder if this is actually a non-issue because if an installer doesn't install with everything you require to uninstall with after that, it could be argued, it's the fault of the installer, and it may not really become a great idea to overcomplicate issues in order to bandage over some other thing's problems. |
left a commentFebruary 14, 2017
Thanks a lot for the information. For my make use of case I'm not really the just one getting modifications to the program, hence using state structured software instead than just remote administration tools. Sadly I can't assure the sincerity of anything on the storage, so the hash check out that can be part of the transfer (for applications I'm about to operate as the system accounts) are, for me at very least, a big offer. |
commentedFebruary 14, 2017
Nicely you phrased this problem as a sort of insect, purchase to my thoughts it's definitely a function demand. |
mentionedFebruary 14, 2017
msi are cached under c:WindowsInstaller Nevertheless msi also look after themselves. Other installers should install an uninstaller with the program. |
mentionedFebruary 14, 2017
@hrumph from a protection viewpoint I would state it's i9000 bug, as it't not checking that any referenced document is certainly what you'd anticipate it to become (preferably I would including to provide a dictionary that routes to needed install or uninstall information, which would furthermore enable you to make use of cachedir with internet servers). @damon-atkins Yes. I work in education so unfortunately a lot of the software offers home-brew installers (MSI deals are pretty rare) or just isn'testosterone levels tested for private install or uninstall. There are quite a great deal if instances where the uninstall info is certainly in the wrong place, e.g. anything built with WiX that provides per-user or per-machine set up will place the uninstall data in the user profile of the installing consumer (actually if you perform a per-machine installation). |
commentedFeb 14, 2017
Hello there @morganwillcock, the current version will not help per consumer installs. I don't believe it will also list it as getting set up. The edition I am functioning on will list software program which is set up under a consumer. Salt Pkg will not help GUI uninstalls/installs. Discover furthermore www.autoitscript.com amp; pywinauto I are hopping to obtain back into it in a few weeks. |
mentionedFebruary 16, 2017
@morganwillcock, I don't really know your scenario. Presuming that customers have admin rights (like they frequently perform) and overwrite the uninstallers with something else, then therefore what? They can do anything they please already, because they have admin rights. If they put on't possess admin rights then they earned't end up being able to overwrite anything. |
addedpartPestand removedFunctionlabelsScar 13, 2017
referenced this concernMar 22, 2017
MergedInclude changes recommended by contributer#40230
customized the milestones: Nitrogen 6, ApprovedMar 22, 2017
added theFixed Pending ConfirmationbrandInterest 3, 2017
left a commentInterest 11, 2017
This offers been set in #40230. Shutting issue. Make sure you let me understand if this repair does not function and we can re-open |
commentedInterest 11, 2017
@Ch3LL thank you, I'll give it a consider |
Indication up for freeto join this discussion on GitHub. Already have an accounts? Sign in to remark