Nikolay Elenkov wrote: > On 2010/12/07 16:03, Martin Paljak wrote: > >> On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:41 AM, Nikolay Elenkov wrote: >> >> >>> On 2010/12/07 2:36, Viktor TARASOV wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://www.opensc-project.org/opensc/wiki/WindowsInstaller#PossibleinstallerstepsWindowsenvironmentdescription >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Here the OpenSC dlls are installed into 'system32'. >>>> Can an alternative method, like changing of the 'PATH' variable, be also >>>> acceptable (for MSI)? >>>> >>>> >>> This is bad, bad, bad. Especially since it also copies the OpenSSL dll in >>> system32, and that breaks a lot of things. It should install in the main >>> directory under c:\Program Files/ and add the bin directory to the PATH. >>> >> Some software is very picky about the location from where it wants to load >> certain modules, cryptographic modules being one of those things. >> >> > > > Any specific examples? Both Firefox and Thunderbird work just fine with > PKCS#11 > on the PATH, and not in System32. Copying stuff in system32 was deprecated > ages > ago. There is nothing special about a PKCS#11 DLL: unlike a Windows CSP, it is > not signed, there aren't any special check AFAIK (at least in Mozilla > software). >
The Gemalto and Oberthur (in the recent versions) middlewares install their DLLs into the 'Program Files'. My hidden motivation to do the same for the OpenSC MSI is that I do not managed to build the MSI that un-installs the DLLs installed in system32. The update and un-update of the PATH variable works remarkably good. -- Viktor Tarasov <viktor.tara...@opentrust.com> _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
