[kepler-dev] 2.1.0 install for non-admin windows users, bug#5065, patching 2.0.0

[Derik Barseghian]

David, are the changes for this fix in 2.1? You said earlier you're  
not sure. Did you merge these into 2.1, or ask me to? Has it been  
tested and is safe to release in 2.1.0?
Let me know if you'd like me to merge certain changes from trunk into  
2.1, letting me know the revision numbers.
It would be nice if from 2.1.0 forward these users don't have to run  
as admin to get patches.

Derik

On Sep 15, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Matt Jones wrote:

> I think that is a fine solution, especially as we've fixed the  
> problem once people have upgraded to 2.1.
>
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Derik Barseghian <barseghian at nceas.ucsb.edu 
> > wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Ok. Even if the fix is included in 2.1.0, that won't help a user  
> who's running 2.0.0 and trying to upgrade to 2.1.0. Even issuing a  
> 2.0.1 patch would have the same problem: they won't be able to  
> download it unless they're running 2.0.0 as admin.
>
> As a test, I edited my installed version of Kepler 2.0.0 on windows  
> to point at the test area, then switched to a non-admin user,  
> launched kepler and tried to upgrade to 2.1.0, and the Module  
> Manager, as expected, freezes, presumably because it's trying to  
> write to the application area but doesn't have permission. I quit  
> kepler and relaunched, this time using 'run as' an admin user, and  
> was able to upgrade fine.
>
> I think the best we can do is include a sentence in the release  
> announcement and on the webpage saying such users have to right- 
> click Run As Admin to update.
>
> Derik
>
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 4:19 PM, David Welker wrote:
>
> Hi Derik,
>
> I am not sure what is included in 2.1 or not. Assuming that the  
> administrative privileges problem is not solved in 2.1 (and I don't  
> necessarily think that it is) the solution is for Windows users to  
> right click and "Run As Administrator" when they are changing from  
> 2.0 to 2.1.
>
> As far as patching 2.0, I need to think about whether it is really  
> necessary in light of the changes to where modules are stored. The  
> system works by first looking for modules in the "traditional"  
> location before the "shared" location, so 2.0 might be compatible  
> without being patched. This is something I need to think about more.
>
> Please go ahead and release on schedule. Especially if you are able  
> to change between 2.0 and 2.1 in your testing using the module  
> manager, I think we are good without a patch. In fact, I may not  
> patch at all if my concerns about a potential problem with 2.0 are  
> not verified by testing or by a user.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Derik Barseghian wrote:
>
> Hey David,
>
> I'm wondering how the 2.1.0 install is going to work for a Windows  
> user without admin rights, since the 2.0.0 Module Manager downloads  
> modules into the Kepler application directory. I wasn't following  
> that thread of work closely, so maybe I missed something. I see http://bugzilla.ecoinformatics.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5065 
>  is resolved, but 2.0.0 hasn't been patched, so I don't see how  
> these users will be able to upgrade without admin rights. Since  
> these users had to get admin privileges to install 2.0.0, is the  
> plan we just presume they do the same to upgrade to 2.1.0?
>
> Also, in a previous discussion you had mentioned you were going to  
> patch 2.0.0 to include some Module Manager changes (I forget which).  
> Are you still planning to do this? What was this patch for? Do you  
> want to release it before 2.1.0? I'm still trying to target the end  
> of this week for 2.1.0 release.
>
> Derik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kepler-dev mailing list
> Kepler-dev at kepler-project.org
> http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/kepler/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev
>

----------
Derik Barseghian
http://nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinfo | office: 805-893-5127
Rm 3411, Marine Science Research Building, UCSB
Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-6150