X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:11:02 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: UAC .manifest files Message-ID: <20090603081102.GI23519@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4A25FA67 DOT 4050805 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A25FA67.4050805@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Jun 2 23:21, Yaakov S wrote: > 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? I never saw more than exactly this list. > 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? I don't know if it matters, but it certainly doesn't hurt either. As a suggestion, when automating this, the name could be constructed like this: Organization=Cygwin Division= Name= Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/