Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACEE9FB4E2;
	Thu, 10 May 2007 07:05:47 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 49205-06; Thu, 10 May 2007 07:05:39 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from developer.pgadmin.org (developer.pgadmin.org [63.246.23.140])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BB69FB46C;
	Thu, 10 May 2007 07:05:42 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from snake.local ([62.232.55.118]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by developer.pgadmin.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4AA1Cks029625
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Thu, 10 May 2007 10:01:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4642EE73.6040805@postgresql.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:05:39 +0100
From: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>, meskes@postgresql.org,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Windows Vista support (Buildfarm Vaquita)
References: <464184A7.1030300@postgresql.org>
	<20070509090117.GA18105@feivel.credativ.de>
	<4641B4AC.40600@postgresql.org>
	<20070510095436.GA409@feivel.credativ.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070510095436.GA409@feivel.credativ.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
OpenPGP: url=http://www.pgadmin.org/pgp/davepage.pgp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200705/435
X-Sequence-Number: 103037

Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:46:52PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> Oh, hang on... Vista's new 'security' features include popups that ask 
>> permission from the user before running any installers. One of the more 
>> basic checks they use is the filename - *anything* called setup.exe will 
>> cause user confirmation to be required before it will run. I believe for 
>> non-interactive sessions it'll just refuse to run. I just tried running 
>> update.exe myself, and yes, you guessed it, a user confirmation dialog 
>> popped up :-(
> 
> Seems to be a little bit braindead to me. 

Yeah - according to Microsoft we should include a manifest with the
executable these days that can prevent the check by specifying that
administrative privileges won't be needed by the executable - but that
involves us adding version resources to the exe, and generating the
manifest during build which seems somewhat over the top for a quick
regression test.

> But anyway, I renamed it and
> just committed the changes. Let's see if this works. 

Thanks.

> P.S.: More on the other problem later.

OK.

Regards, Dave.