https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171348
--- Comment #6 from V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #5) > Stuart, what you said is factually correct, i.e. it's not our doing. However > - it is to some extent our _responsibility_. > > You're suggesting that there are exactly two alternatives: > > 1. Manually allow an update, each time one is available. > 2. Forego automatic updates > > Option (2.) is quite undesirable for the user, and for us (e.g. for reasons > of security). And option (1.) is quite annoying. We are causing the > annoyance, even if indirectly. > > Is there really no third option? Isn't it possible to: > > * White-list our updater for future execution? > * Update, while avoiding the UAC alert? No that is controlled by os/DE and can not be avoided. > * Have our installer request privilege escalation, and install some kind of > updater service (yes, I know, ugh) > > I'm pretty sure that at least the last one of those is possible... > That is *exactly* what our update.exe "service" provides. UAC is unavoidable for non-admin users. > So, let's rephrase the bug to be about creating a third option for users not > to be annoyed. Seems the prior "LibreOffice service update.exe triggers UAC control on Windows for non-Administrator users" is exactly the situation and => NAB/NOB -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
