X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=YnhiONJWJq7mNm3+TJFLJPLtADp7rLOgzlNsN2sxB/P
	sNVQD+3THXi97ZjM8QaBg7dcDQcj/J6y3CU2EsViuj+hbStnIlDrrx+Pp2t0Swwz
	QbQp/HENS0DPHfmIFZ8omtURszubsHZz06XyRTwGLrPJdvlxc+OrAMFMxt3BJLJ4
	=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 s=default; bh=pCqS/KoqhsXXILGPxS3frRDr56g=; b=KcPVOPNmMKN7RIov/
	VgYGIQAx2limfudUP/+F3NZUpQ3GHpmm8MMy+HTL17rSIl8QnmJo4x92psPMjyHq
	n9b63gpNzAfhiNAC/IhvlKnczUC5Byt/LkxF+qrDur/UYsGpa3v+uzB5jjUPapR0
	bsH2ljEm7gc6bQJ8RFRUk0ef/o=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,URI_HEX autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: smtpauth05.mfg.siteprotect.com
Message-ID: <527699A4.3050806@brazier.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:44:52 -0500
From: Bill Welch <bill AT brazier DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: How about a 64-bit installer that doesn't require UAC?
References: <527563E7 DOT 70508 AT brazier DOT com> <832145579 DOT 20131103022843 AT mtu-net DOT ru>
In-Reply-To: <832145579.20131103022843@mtu-net.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A02020A.527699A6.0034,ss=1,re=0.100,fgs=0

I presume you're referring to
http://cygwin.1069669.n5.nabble.com/cannot-run-setup64-exe-without-admin-privileges-even-if-renamed-foo-exe-td102712.html, 
where the final (official cygwin, apparently) word is that you think 
cygwin users are too stupid to be allowed a choice in 64-bit, that they 
have in 32-bit, no matter how locked down and single user their 
corporate machine might be.

Thanks.

On 2013-11-02 18:28, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Bill Welch!
>
>> Yes, I could try to change the application manifest myself, but that
>> seems esoteric and I haven't been able to find any GPL tool.
> I suggest you use search before posting. This has been discussed already.
> The real solution would be a tool that run in postinstall scripts and can
> prompt user for privilege elevation, but noone had time or inclination to
> write one. Yet.
>
>
> --
> WBR,
> Andrey Repin (anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru) 03.11.2013, <02:26>
>
> Sorry for my terrible english...
>
>


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple