Re: [GOLDSTAR] Re: [PATCH] setup: allow running as non-admin
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:50PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >What changed is the way how normal users can install for "just them". >No name tweak but an option instead. Given what you wrote, an >installation as normal user right from the net was not possible before, >so just the method to do it changed slightly. By documenting it >somewhere, we should be all set, shouldn't we? So, in other words, an end user will no longer have to rename setup*.exe to foo.exe to bypass enforced elevation but will, instead, just have to use a command-line option. Sounds good to me. We can add words for that to the install.html web page and to the FAQ. cgf
Re: [GOLDSTAR] Re: [PATCH] setup: allow running as non-admin
On Nov 9 16:43, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote: > Corinna Vinschen sent the following at Saturday, November 09, 2013 5:20 AM > >Maybe I'm dense but I don't quite understand it. Under 32 bit, a tool > >called "setup-foo" will be recognized as an installer binary. Therefore > >the "helpful" UAC installer recognition will try to start setup-x86 as > >an installer with admin permissions, asking for consent (default for > >admin accounts) or admin credentials (default for non-admin accounts). > > > >How was it possible at all to start 32 bit setup as normal user, without > >getting the elevation prompt? > > > >Or, hmm... > > > >[do you hear me thinking?] > > > >...does the UAC installer recognition only kick in for an UAC crippled > >admin account but not for a normal user account? > > > >[...testing...] > > > >I just started an older setup-x86 on Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 using > >a non-admin user account, and in both cases I have been asked for > >administrator credentials. > > > >Which means, I still don't understand how anybody ran setup from > >http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe as a normal user account without being > >asked for admin creds. > > > >Unless the admins of these machines have switched off the installer > >recognition. In that case non-admins could simply start setup-x86 from > >the net and now they can't anymore. Do we still want to support this? > > If support is dropped, the Cygwin home page should explain what > non-admins need to do to install 32 bit Cygwin. > > The solution on this list has long been "download and rename to > foo.exe". That could be done for all by renaming > http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe to http://cygwin.com/getcygwin32.exe. > > I've often wondered whether there is a reason why this hasn't been > done before. If there is, I'd be interested in learning why, for > my education. Is there a benefit to having an installer name that > includes "setup" or "install"? (If there is, I'll drop the topic.) The installation as admin for "all users" was always, and should stay, the default. All home main users on XP were admins anyway so this wasn't a problem before. Under UAC, the installer recognition handled that so far, on 64 bit the "asAdmin" manifest. Shaddy's change makes the setup-xxx name useless since the binary elevates itself, but in fact this change eliminates the name discussion entirely. UAC installer recognition doesn't kick in anymore given the "asInvoker" mainfest. It doesn't matter anymore if the binary is called setup or blurb, it will behave identically. What changed is the way how normal users can install for "just them". No name tweak but an option instead. Given what you wrote, an installation as normal user right from the net was not possible before, so just the method to do it changed slightly. By documenting it somewhere, we should be all set, shouldn't we? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat pgp1Gw59RwG84.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: [GOLDSTAR] Re: [PATCH] setup: allow running as non-admin
Corinna Vinschen sent the following at Saturday, November 09, 2013 5:20 AM >Maybe I'm dense but I don't quite understand it. Under 32 bit, a tool >called "setup-foo" will be recognized as an installer binary. Therefore >the "helpful" UAC installer recognition will try to start setup-x86 as >an installer with admin permissions, asking for consent (default for >admin accounts) or admin credentials (default for non-admin accounts). > >How was it possible at all to start 32 bit setup as normal user, without >getting the elevation prompt? > >Or, hmm... > >[do you hear me thinking?] > >...does the UAC installer recognition only kick in for an UAC crippled >admin account but not for a normal user account? > >[...testing...] > >I just started an older setup-x86 on Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 using >a non-admin user account, and in both cases I have been asked for >administrator credentials. > >Which means, I still don't understand how anybody ran setup from >http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe as a normal user account without being >asked for admin creds. > >Unless the admins of these machines have switched off the installer >recognition. In that case non-admins could simply start setup-x86 from >the net and now they can't anymore. Do we still want to support this? If support is dropped, the Cygwin home page should explain what non-admins need to do to install 32 bit Cygwin. The solution on this list has long been "download and rename to foo.exe". That could be done for all by renaming http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe to http://cygwin.com/getcygwin32.exe. I've often wondered whether there is a reason why this hasn't been done before. If there is, I'd be interested in learning why, for my education. Is there a benefit to having an installer name that includes "setup" or "install"? (If there is, I'll drop the topic.) This is a suggestion, not a request. This doesn't affect me because I almost never run setup from the browser. I run it off my hard disk, downloading updates when they are released. Thanks, - Barry Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID.
Re: [GOLDSTAR] Re: [PATCH] setup: allow running as non-admin
On Nov 8 19:40, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 11:04:34AM +1100, Shaddy Baddah wrote: > >On Nov 08 02:23, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> Thanks again for doing this. > > > >Done. Don't mention it. > > I have to mention it because your type of contribution is so rare in > this project. There are only a handful of people who contribute code so > you're very much appreciated. > > >I'm delighted to give back to the Cygwin community and thank you all > >for what I feel is one of the best, if not the best open source project > >and community. > > > >I'll stick around too and help if there is any issues with the patch. > > Did you see the comments in the list? Are they valid complaints? Maybe I'm dense but I don't quite understand it. Under 32 bit, a tool called "setup-foo" will be recognized as an installer binary. Therefore the "helpful" UAC installer recognition will try to start setup-x86 as an installer with admin permissions, asking for consent (default for admin accounts) or admin credentials (default for non-admin accounts). How was it possible at all to start 32 bit setup as normal user, without getting the elevation prompt? Or, hmm... [do you hear me thinking?] ...does the UAC installer recognition only kick in for an UAC crippled admin account but not for a normal user account? [...testing...] I just started an older setup-x86 on Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 using a non-admin user account, and in both cases I have been asked for administrator credentials. Which means, I still don't understand how anybody ran setup from http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe as a normal user account without being asked for admin creds. Unless the admins of these machines have switched off the installer recognition. In that case non-admins could simply start setup-x86 from the net and now they can't anymore. Do we still want to support this? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat pgpsKOE7XOT74.pgp Description: PGP signature
