Vista & coreutils (or any other package)

[Brian Dessent]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> just FYI, I'd like to point you to this thread on the Microsoft Windows
> Vista developer forum:
> 
> http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1020271&SiteID=1&mode=1
> 
> I didn't trust my eyes when I realized what happens.  The above thread
> is the result.
> 
> Btw., how many packages actually have executables with the string
> "instal", "update" and "setup" in them?
> 
> I'm not sure if that would help, but maybe some of you would like to
> express their concerns in this forum as well.

I remember reading about that on (I think) the UAC blog at MSDN a while
ago, and making a mental note that it would haunt us.  It seems clear
the idea here was that many false positives were seen as worthy price to
pay in order to prevent false negatives where some slob tries to install
their new 8 year old webcam software or whatever and get tons of errors.

The manifest route is pretty simple, you just create an .xml file, then
refer to it in a resource file, and then windres does the rest.  But
it's a pain that we shouldn't have to deal with.  I think the "advise
people to disable this in secpol" will end up being the more common
route.  Maybe we can add code to setup to check that setting and offer
to change it automatically, or at least launch "mmc secpol.msc" or
something.  In the mean time it sounds like a FAQ entry will be our best
bet.

Brian

--
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/