[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[p2-dev] Re: Shared installs and our EPP Packages
- From: Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:26:15 +0200
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:22.214.171.124) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
Am 12.08.2010 15:32, schrieb Ian Bull:
> 1. The definition of 'shared' installs. If each user could update the
> base then this is not really 'shared' anymore. Some users have SR1,
> some have SR2, etc...
I started thinking more about this and I'm tending to say that Windows
is *not* a shared install in terms of the original definition on
Unix/Linux. I think there are different kinds of "shared" installs now.
A) not really shared
A user installs something into a protected area. During installation the
user gained higher privileges (either automatically or on purpose). But
generally the user is the owner of the system and is the exclusive user
of the install.
In essence only the installation location is write protected. A user may
not even be aware of this (UAC).
B) really shared
An administrator installs something into a shared location to be used by
Case B clearly is a shared install. However, case A is different. That's
the Windows 7 case (IMHO). I think it's wrong to treat it the same as
> 2. Consistency. If a users updates some bundles in the shared area, and
> then the admin updates the base, what should we use now?
This clearly applies to B but not to A. In case A user == admin,
however, the user might not even be aware of this.
I think p2 needs different strategies for case A and B and a smart
decision when selecting a strategy.