X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A25FA67.4050805@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:21:59 -0500 From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090223 Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: UAC .manifest files Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com I'm up and running again, this time with Windows 7 RC x64 (at least for now), so I'm getting my first intro to the joys of UAC, which is fortunately more sane in Win7 than it is in Vista. I now realize that there are a number of packages, in both the distro and Ports, which still need .manifest files added for their binaries. I think the best solution is to let cygport detect susceptible apps and generate .manifest files automatically. 1. AFAICS, this affects EXEs with names containing "install", "patch", "setup", or "update". Are there any more patterns? 2. According to MSDN[1], the name attribute of the assemblyIdentity subelement should be uniquely named in a Organization.Division.Name format. Our existing manifests don't do that; should we? Does it matter? [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374191(VS.85).aspx Yaakov -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/