Juiceman skrev: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Zero3<zero3 at zerosplayground.dk> wrote: >> Juiceman skrev: >>> I'm working on the update.cmd script handling these binaries... it >>> seems the .sha1 of all of these files is blank on the website. The >>> wrappers, start.exe, stop.exe and the freenetlauncher.exe. I'll need >>> that fixed please to continue my work ;-) >> Cool! Remember to update freenettray.exe as well. > > Is that separate from the freenetlauncher.exe?
Yes. Will be located in the bin folder. The launcher has no user interface and does nothing but load fproxy in the best available browser when executed. The tray manager is reponsible for keeping a tray icon running in the background. >> Did you put any thought into how to handle existing installations >> without the tray manager? The ideal solution (but which requires a bit >> more work from you) would be to offer to install the tray manager for >> installations that do not already have it. It's really just a matter of >> downloading the file and adding it to the "Start" all users program >> group in the start menu. > > Honestly, adding the tray manager would be easy enough for > installations that have been done with the new wininstaller you > created, but older installs won't work because they are lacking > installid.dat (although I could probably create it, hmm...) I don't think we should mess around with installations by the old installer - no. But adding the tray manager to installations made with the new wininstaller would be cool. We might want to branch the update script into one version for old installations and one for wininstaller installations? > The other issue I have is adding a prompt will change the default > function of the script so if someone has a cron job it will hang > waiting for input. If people don't think that breaking this is a > problem I will do it. Well. Users should *not* run update.cmd on regular basis at all. It's only meant for crash recovery , updater-over-freenet failure or updating of helper executables. We could also silently install it? But I'd rather ask, to be honest.. The good old DOS "choice" command (probably not included in XP/Vista, but can be downloaded from various sites) has a timeout setting, after which it will continue with a default value (no, in our case) anyway. > I see you are now installing via the system account instead of > creating a user called "freenet", how does this affect my work? Yea. You should give access via cacls/icacls to the LocalService user instead... Though you shouldn't need to do that at all on wininstaller installations. The installer fixes the access for the main installation folder with the "inherit" flag active, meaning that any changed/new files will get the correct access automatically. I'm not sure if there are anywhere else the script would be affected? - Zero3
