Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > Re: [Python-Dev] RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 2

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [Python-Dev] RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 2

 
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004
Anthony Baxter wrote:
> Python 2.4a2 is an alpha release. We'd greatly appreciate it if you
> could download it, kick the tires and let us know of any problems you
> find, but it is not suitable for production usage.


The Windows installer should support upgrading from a previous Python
2.4 installation. If you have previously installed 2.4a1, you may try
this out; please report any problems you find.

Regards,
Martin
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Vincent Wehren
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2004
"Martin v. L÷wis" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| Anthony Baxter wrote:
| > Python 2.4a2 is an alpha release. We'd greatly appreciate it if you
| > could download it, kick the tires and let us know of any problems you
| > find, but it is not suitable for production usage.
|
| The Windows installer should support upgrading from a previous Python
| 2.4 installation. If you have previously installed 2.4a1, you may try
| this out; please report any problems you find.
|
| Regards,
| Martin

What surprised me a little is that on Win XP I could install 2.4a2 as a user
with restricted rights over a previously administrator-installed
for-all-users 2.4a1 standard-paths-used installation without
warnings/problems - well, except for the obvious errors writing to the
registry (and yes, I tried it intentionally . I am not entirely on board
with the MSI's capabilities, but is there a way to tell the user (before the
registry errors happen), that he/she may have insufficient rights to
install?

--
Vincent Wehren



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2004
Vincent Wehren wrote:
> What surprised me a little is that on Win XP I could install 2.4a2 as a user
> with restricted rights over a previously administrator-installed
> for-all-users 2.4a1 standard-paths-used installation without
> warnings/problems - well, except for the obvious errors writing to the
> registry (and yes, I tried it intentionally . I am not entirely on board
> with the MSI's capabilities, but is there a way to tell the user (before the
> registry errors happen), that he/she may have insufficient rights to
> install?


I'm not quite sure I understand what you were doing, and in what way
this has surprised you. It seems
- you made a per-machine installation as the administrator
- you then upgraded as a restricted user (not being asked whether this
is going to be per-user or per-machine)

What *should* have happened is this:
- MSI finds that the new installation is per user, and the old
installation is per-machine, so no upgrade is possible
- the UI then tells you that the target directory already exists,
and wants confirmation
- if you proceed, it overwrites the existing files, creating a
per-user installation (i.e. shortcuts in your profile, registry
keys in HKEY_CURRENT_USER)

Are you saying that somebody else has happened instead?
If not, in what way did that surprise you?

Regards,
Martin
 
Reply With Quote
 
vincent wehren
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2004

"Martin v. L÷wis" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4113429a$0$26993$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Vincent Wehren wrote:
> > What surprised me a little is that on Win XP I could install 2.4a2 as a

user
> > with restricted rights over a previously administrator-installed
> > for-all-users 2.4a1 standard-paths-used installation without
> > warnings/problems - well, except for the obvious errors writing to the
> > registry (and yes, I tried it intentionally . I am not entirely on

board
> > with the MSI's capabilities, but is there a way to tell the user (before

the
> > registry errors happen), that he/she may have insufficient rights to
> > install?

>
> I'm not quite sure I understand what you were doing, and in what way
> this has surprised you. It seems
> - you made a per-machine installation as the administrator


True.

> - you then upgraded as a restricted user (not being asked whether this
> is going to be per-user or per-machine)


True

>
> What *should* have happened is this:
> - MSI finds that the new installation is per user, and the old
> installation is per-machine, so no upgrade is possible


Can't say, but I take your word for it

> - the UI then tells you that the target directory already exists,
> and wants confirmation


Yes.

> - if you proceed, it overwrites the existing files, creating a
> per-user installation (i.e. shortcuts in your profile, registry
> keys in HKEY_CURRENT_USER)
>
> Are you saying that somebody else has happened instead?


Well, writing a bunch of the registry keys fails. This user has no rights to
write them and is greated with several error messages as in:

"Could not write value to key
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\.py Verify that you have
sufficient access to that key, or contact your support personnel."

... Same for .pyw, .pyc, *.pyo etc.
... Python.File\shell\open\command
... Python.NoConFile\shell\open\command
... Python.CompiledFile\shell
... Edit with Idle

and so on. I was just wondering if the installer should be aware of the
rights situation and not try to write those keys in the first place.

--
Vincent

> If not, in what way did that surprise you?
>
> Regards,
> Martin



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2004
vincent wehren wrote:
> Well, writing a bunch of the registry keys fails. This user has no rights to
> write them and is greated with several error messages as in:
>
> "Could not write value to key
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\.py Verify that you have
> sufficient access to that key, or contact your support personnel."
>
> .. Same for .pyw, .pyc, *.pyo etc.
> .. Python.File\shell\open\command
> .. Python.NoConFile\shell\open\command
> .. Python.CompiledFile\shell
> .. Edit with Idle
>
> and so on. I was just wondering if the installer should be aware of the
> rights situation and not try to write those keys in the first place.


This is very surprising. How unprivileged must a user be so he can't
write to HKEY_CURRENT_USER? What operating system is this, and how
was the user created?

MSI does have the notion of unprivileged users, but those are the
ones that can't write to System32, the All Users profile, and
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (i.e. non-Administrator, non-Power User users).
There is no provision (AFAICT) for user that can't write to their
own registry.

Regards,
Martin
 
Reply With Quote
 
vincent wehren
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2004
Martin v. L÷wis wrote:
> vincent wehren wrote:
>
>> Well, writing a bunch of the registry keys fails. This user has no
>> rights to
>> write them and is greated with several error messages as in:
>>
>> "Could not write value to key
>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\.py Verify that you have
>> sufficient access to that key, or contact your support personnel."
>>
>> .. Same for .pyw, .pyc, *.pyo etc.
>> .. Python.File\shell\open\command
>> .. Python.NoConFile\shell\open\command
>> .. Python.CompiledFile\shell
>> .. Edit with Idle
>>
>> and so on. I was just wondering if the installer should be aware of the
>> rights situation and not try to write those keys in the first place.

>
>
> This is very surprising. How unprivileged must a user be so he can't
> write to HKEY_CURRENT_USER? What operating system is this, and how
> was the user created?


This is on Windows XP Professional. This is a plain vanilla "limited
user" created via the user accounts tool in the control panel.

>
> MSI does have the notion of unprivileged users, but those are the
> ones that can't write to System32, the All Users profile, and
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (i.e. non-Administrator, non-Power User users).
> There is no provision (AFAICT) for user that can't write to their
> own registry.


Yes. That makes sense. So I checked the registry with regedit.
"HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes" seems - for whatever reason - to be
busted for this particular user. At least I can't open it manually with
regedit, so my tentative guess is the same applies to the installer.
Sorry I didn't check this first!

--
Vincent Wehren




>
> Regards,
> Martin












 
Reply With Quote
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2004
vincent wehren wrote:
> This is on Windows XP Professional. This is a plain vanilla "limited
> user" created via the user accounts tool in the control panel.


Ok. I will try that.

There is a policy AlwaysInstallElevated, with which the administrator
can allow limited users to perform installations:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...llelevated.asp

If the computer is in a domain, this policy can be controlled through
group policy.

Regards,
Martin
 
Reply With Quote
 
vincent wehren
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2004
Martin v. L÷wis wrote:
> vincent wehren wrote:
>
>> This is on Windows XP Professional. This is a plain vanilla "limited
>> user" created via the user accounts tool in the control panel.

>
>
> Ok. I will try that.
>
> There is a policy AlwaysInstallElevated, with which the administrator
> can allow limited users to perform installations:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...llelevated.asp
>
>
> If the computer is in a domain, this policy can be controlled through
> group policy.
>
> Regards,
> Martin



Martin, did you see my last remark in my previous post?:

>
> MSI does have the notion of unprivileged users, but those are the
> ones that can't write to System32, the All Users profile, and
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE (i.e. non-Administrator, non-Power User users).
> There is no provision (AFAICT) for user that can't write to their
> own registry.


Yes. That makes sense. So I checked the registry with regedit.
"HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes" seems - for whatever reason - to be
busted for this particular user. At least I can't open it manually with
regedit, so my tentative guess is the same applies to the installer.
Sorry I didn't check this first!

--
Vincent Wehren
 
Reply With Quote
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
vincent wehren wrote:
> Yes. That makes sense. So I checked the registry with regedit.
> "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes" seems - for whatever reason - to be
> busted for this particular user. At least I can't open it manually with
> regedit, so my tentative guess is the same applies to the installer.
> Sorry I didn't check this first!


Yes, saw that. I'm not faulting you though - I do believe that the
behaviour in this case should be improved somehow.

Regards,
Martin
 
Reply With Quote
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2004
Martin v. L÷wis wrote:

> Yes, saw that. I'm not faulting you though - I do believe that the
> behaviour in this case should be improved somehow.


Ok, I have tried to reproduce this, and *now* I'm faulting you
I thought that there was a special "restricted user" with less-than-
reasonable permissions. I usually have XP Pro in a domain only, so I
don't get to see this user interface. I have tried this out, and found
that a "restricted account" is just one where the user belongs to
the "Users" group (instead of belonging to the "Power Users" group).
Such a user can, by default, write to its own registry, and install
the MSI as planned (i.e. Privileged is false). Closing #1004837.

Regards,
Martin

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 3 Anthony Baxter Python 0 09-03-2004 08:36 AM
Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 2 Anthony Baxter Python 29 08-11-2004 02:07 AM
RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 2 Anthony Baxter Python 0 08-05-2004 01:10 PM
RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1 Anthony Baxter Python 22 07-16-2004 07:29 PM
Re: RELEASED Python 2.4, alpha 1 Mike C. Fletcher Python 16 07-12-2004 10:50 PM



Advertisments