Hope this is the right way to update this. I found the answer at
.
URGENT ACTION IS REQUIRED BY MICROSOFT ON THIS ISSUE.
>
> Dear all,
>
> Many people are being frustrated by the newer version of the IEAK or the
> update to IE55SP2 which after being created by the IEAK fails to install,
> with either a not all the components can be installed error message, or an
> error indicating that installation of browser cusomisations failed.
>
> The solution holds much thanks to Bob Echter (bechter@gbix.net). His post
> was dated 26th June 2001, so this problem has been in existance for a while.
>
> The problem lies with IE5setup.cif file which in layman terms incorrectly
> makes the branding.cab file only install if the version of IE is equal to or
> higher than 6.0 rather than 5.0. This sounds crazy, but its how I read it,
> and is most probably true, below is an extract from Bob's post.
>
> "I found the answer just yesterday. The problem is with the iesetup.cif
> file
> that is created in the ie5setup.exe file. You will have to extract all the
> files from ie5setup using the /c switch. edit the ie5setup.cif file and
> look for the section for the branding.cab. There you will see a line like
> this: Dependencies=BASEIE40_Win:N:6.0.0.0, change it to read
> Dependencies=BASEIE40_Win:N:5.0.0.0 save the file. Now you have to use the
> iexpress.exe program to recreate the ie5setup.exe file.
>
> This fixes the problem. I have not been able to find where MS gets the
> version 6 check from but it drove me nuts for 3 days."
>
> To add to the above you will also need to proably use the /t switch when
> extracting the above so something like ie5setup.exe /t:c:\ie55setup /c the
> files will then be placed in c:\ie55setup, modify the Ie5setup.cif file
> created in there and then use the Iexpress tool to recreate an new
> IE5setup.exe file (or give it your own name, it doesn't matter).
>
> Note: Something my own testing has shown is that the iecif.cab file also
> contains an incorrect ie5setup.cif file, this doesn't seem to affect the
> solution given above by Bob, but there could be repercussions later.
>
> I personally would wait for an official fix from MS for this, but for those
> in mission critical environments where this build needs to be deployed now,
> the above is a workaround. If anyone from MS is reading this, or if anyone
> has good hooks into MS, please pass this information along, and get this
> issued resolved. I'm sure there are lots of admins out there tearing there
> hair out wasting lots of time, for something that shouldn't have been broken
> in the first place.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Janson (aka JTR)
