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