I was about to suggest the same thing, but alas, it would be hard to do anyways. Another solution would be to extract the installer (it's possible sometimes) and replace the offending .exe with a basic one that WINE runs flawlessly (
notepad.exe? xD) and run the installer... however, that could lead to issues if the program really depends on any output from the .NET installer... not to mention it's a VERY DIRTY hack and it might not work, but it's a theory I have in mind xD.
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/4/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Markus Hitter</b> <<a href="mailto:mah@jump-ing.de">mah@jump-ing.de</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Am 03.10.2007 um 22:46 schrieb DARKGuy .:<br><br>> (take a look at it from the<br>> developer's eyes: It'd be better to make it install anyways and<br>> avoid the<br>> customer tell you that it didn't work when they didn't had the needed
<br>> dependencies installed)<br><br>Obviously, this developer closes eyes for the case when his version<br>of the dependency doesn't match what other parts of the system<br>require which is usually the case after the first system update
<br>(patch for .NET in this case) at latest.<br><br>It appears, the only choice to get rid of such destructive<br>assumptions is to hack the installer or to install on another system<br>and transfer the files really needed. Both is likely a tricky thing
<br>due to registry entries and thelike.<br><br><br>Markus<br><br>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br>Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter<br><a href="http://www.jump-ing.de/">http://www.jump-ing.de/</a><br><br><br><br><br></blockquote>
</div><br>