Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3E72FDD1.5060200@t-online.de>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:17:53 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_Sch=F6nhaber?= <mks99 AT t-online DOT de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New release of setup.exe (2.249.2.10)
References: <20030313205847 DOT E1E4B1C221 AT redhat DOT com> <3E710A26 DOT 5050207 AT t-online DOT de> <20030314025249 DOT GB33739617 AT hpn5170x> <3E718AD8 DOT 4010209 AT t-online DOT de> <3E71E0D9 DOT 682AD75E AT ieee DOT org> <3E720139 DOT 70402 AT t-online DOT de> <3E7206BA DOT 9543594A AT ieee DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <3E7206BA.9543594A@ieee.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h2FAI0K03222

Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> 
>>Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>
>>>Markus Schönhaber wrote:
>>>
>>>>I just started setup under a non-privileged account and XP's mechanism to
>>>>show the "Run as Administrator" dialog when starting a program called
>>>>"setup.exe" or "install.exe" kicked in.
>>>>Maybe this is what you meant? If so - it worked for me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, that's it. You seem to be very familiar with it.
>>>Where is it documented? Is it language dependent?
>>>
>>
>>No, I'm not too familiar with it. I just know that it has been there when
>>I expected it to be.
>>Have quickly looked into the MSDN Lib and found nothing. So getting the
>>exact specification will take some research.

I have done some more research now but it seems the exact specification is
buried somewhere where at least I can't find it. Nevertheless I have found
some potential reasons for the "Install Program as other User" dialog not
appearing. In the W2k Group Policy Reference there are two pages related
to this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/gp/337.asp
describes how to turn off this feature using group policy, while
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/gp/338.asp
explains how to enable it even for network shares.
There is (as always?) a registry entry related to the Group Policy:
http://www.tburke.net/info/regentry/GPRef.htm#93546
(should check for Microsoft's documentation regarding this point - but I 
beleive him)

There is also a knowledge base article with the same info:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=310360
Just loosely related but also interesting:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314855

This clearly doesn't answer your questions where this feature is 
documented and whether it is language dependent but it hints at two more 
spots to look at when it's not working:
- it might be turned off by Group Policy or the corresponding registry value,
- setup.exe might reside on a network share meaning that the "Install..." 
dialog won't show up by default (could verify that behaviour on my machine).

>>Here are some unproven opinions of mine (beware! yet to be verified):
>>- Since setup.exe triggered this mechanism on a German windows, I doubt
>>that this feautre is language-dependent.
>>- To work properly, I think this feature relies on the secondary locon
>>service (Run As service in W2k?). So if the dialog doesn't appear on some
>>machine - even though the user has *not* at least power user rights - the
>>first thing I'd check is wether the secondary logon service is running.
>>- As mentioned above, I seem to remember that the dialog will not appear
>>if you are power user or administrator (to me only the latter was obvious).
>>
>>
>>>The main question is: what's the group of the files (Users or Administrators)?
>>>If it's Administrators and Everyone does not have access, then most normal
>>>users probably don't have rx access.
>>>
>>
>>The Group is Users. Seems OK to me.
> 
>  
> OK, thanks for the information, Markus. 
> So far so good.
>
> I recall another problem that somebody had reported after answering "yes".
> The chown command in a postinstall script had no effect. That would mean
> that at, at least at that site, the program was lacking the Restore privilege.
> To test if this is a prevalent problem, a simple test is to put a 
> testchown.sh script in /etc/postinstall . setup will then run it and wecan
> see if the command worked.
> 

I'll check that out. But you'll have to explain that to me in clear and 
simple words, that even I am able to understand what I am supposed to do.

Regards
   mks



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/