[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Martin v. Löwis added the comment: I haven't tested the per-user installations in the last five years, so I don't actually know what the problems are these days. One key issue is the elevated privileges topic (UAC). Correct me if I'm wrong: installing per-user still requires to run the installer with administrator privileges (i.e. you get the UAC prompt), right? The other (solved) oddity is that the installer needs to include two copies of msvcrt, as the merge module only supports installation into the SxS folder. As for this issue: if somebody provides a complete patch, I'm willing to consider it. Make sure to discuss backwards compatibility. Simultaneous installation of multiple patch levels is out of scope of this issue. Note that you can get the installer to support it by editing the UpgradeCode in the MSI file with orca. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Steve Dower added the comment: UAC is still required for the installer - unfortunately MSI just doesn't support having a single package that can do both elevated and unelevated installs. Still, you can install once per-user and then copy the PythonXY folder onto another machine, which does not work as easily with the all-users install. I actually have a collection of zipped Python installs and an automated test that extracts each one in turn. I'm not sure what constitutes a complete patch, but I've attached a patch for msi.py (though I have no idea how it works and can't test it locally) and launcher.c to look at the new keys. If there are tests for these I don't see where they are, but I'm happy to extend them. I don't think backwards compatibility is a concern here. Older versions of Python will continue to incorrectly handle side-by-side per-user installations with the py.exe launcher and any other tools that use the registry to find installations. Existing tools that are not modified will find Python 3.5 installations with identical mechanics to previously, while those that also look for the InstallPath32 and *64 keys will find both installations if they are there. Even if the changes are backported as a bugfix, nothing changes for tools that are not aware of the new keys. -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file34363/20883_1.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
New submission from Jurko Gospodnetić: When running the Python Windows installer 'for all users', the 32-bit installation and the 64-bit installation each gets a separate registration in the Windows registry. E.g. under: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Python\PythonCore\3.4 and: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Python\PythonCore\3.4 However, when running the installer 'for the current user only', the 32-bit and the 64-bit installation both use the same Windows registry key: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Python\PythonCore\3.4 Note that a 64-bit installation does not automatically uninstall a previous 32-bit installation in either case, or vice versa. As I understand it, whichever installation you use, you should be able to run a specific Python interpreter using the py.exe runner, as in: py.exe -3.4 py.exe -3.4-32 As it stands now - both of those run the same interpreter when they have been installed 'for the current user only', although when running 'py.exe -3.4-32' the runner will make an extra check and reject running the Python executable if the 64-bit version was installed last. So: 1. If you install the 64-bit version first and then the 32-bit version, both 'py.exe -3.4' 'py.exe -3.4-32' run the 32-bit executable. 2. If you install the 32-bit version first and then the 64-bit version, 'py.exe -3.4' runs the 64-bit version, and 'py.exe -3.4-32' exits with an error. -- components: Installation, Windows messages: 213045 nosy: Jurko.Gospodnetić priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other versions: Python 3.3, Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Jurko Gospodnetić added the comment: A possible solution would be to update installers and runners to use HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Wow6432Node registry entries for 32-bit 'for current user only' installations on a 64-bit Windows OS. To preserve backward compatibility, runners could fall back to reading the 64-bit HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software registry entries if their 32-bit counterparts can not be found directly. This way: - installations on 32-bit Windows are unaffected - new installations work with new runners correctly - old installations work with new runners as before - old installations work with old runners as before - new 64-bit installations work with old runners as before - new 32-bit installations do not work with old runners -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Changes by STINNER Victor victor.stin...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +loewis, tim.golden ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Martin v. Löwis added the comment: This is not a bug in Python, but either intentional, or a bug in Windows. Processing of Wow64Node is done by Windows, see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa384253(v=vs.85).aspx As you can see, the SOFTWARE key is redirected in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, but shared in HKEY_CURRENT_USER. If you think that absolutely something must be done, I would suggest to remove the install for current user feature altogether - it has too many flaws imposed by Windows. -- resolution: - invalid status: open - closed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Paul Moore added the comment: OK, fair enough (I agree that the Windows behaviour here is the root cause of the problem). However, it *would* have been possible for the registry keys to be HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Python\PythonCore\3.4-32 and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Python\PythonCore\3.4-64 (with whatever Wow64 nonsense MS chose to add). If that had been in place, we would not have this bug. The change is backward incompatible, though (in an annoyingly obscure way as well), and I'm comfortable with a resolution that this is not a sufficiently common scenario to warrant that sort of change. -- nosy: +pmoore ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Jurko Gospodnetić added the comment: I'm against removing local user installation support because that is the only way Python can be installed without write access to shared system locations like the Windows system folder or the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE registry hive. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Paul Moore added the comment: Agreed, that is not necessary. Nor was Martin suggesting it as far as I can tell, he was simply saying that it would be less disruptive in the broader scheme of things than messing with the Python registry scheme to work around the limitation that 32 and 64 bit Pythons can't both be registered as per-user installations. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Jurko Gospodnetić added the comment: And as for simultaneous 64/32-bit Python installations on a single 64-bit machine - as Paul said, whichever way Microsoft implemented its automatic registry key redirection, it is up to Python to decide how its installer should behave. So the question is - should it be possible to run 32-bit 64-bit Python installations on the same machine using the standard py.exe wrapper when those installations are done for the current user only? I know I found that useful in a scenario (done using installations 'for all users' though) where I had some scripts using 64-bit Python and needed to run several scripts automating a 32-bit Python extension module. I believe the problem was in the pstools module that at the time was not available as a 64-bit build (don't know if that situation has been resolved since). Personally, I just noticed the undocumented inconsistency and decided to report it. I don't really care all that much about whether it is resolved cleanly, as in my development setup I have other problems preventing me from using the py.exe wrapper all together - I need multiple parallel patch releases in the same system and the best way I found to achieve that is to: - do a 'local user installation' - version A, - rename the target folder for version A - do a 'local user installation' - version B, - ... and have my own version specific startup scripts like py243.cmd, py244.cmd, py276_x86.cmd, py276.cmd, py340.cmd, ... I really don't like it that different Python X.Y patch releases overwrite each other's installation registrations or uninstall each other automatically. :-( Or that you can not specify more detailed Python interpreter version information like 2.4.3 to the py.exe wrapper. :-( -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Jurko Gospodnetić added the comment: Nor was Martin suggesting it as far as I can tell I'm sorry if I came across too strongly. I can assure you I meant no disrespect nor have I at any point felt affronted by anything anyone else said in this thread/issue. :-) -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue20883] Windows 'for current user' installation - 32/64-bit registrations overwrite each other
Steve Dower added the comment: I would be in favour of having separate keys for 32-bit and 64-bit installs (in addition to the current one, if dropping it completely is not an option). We use the registry keys in PTVS (http://pytools.codeplex.com/) to detect installed interpreters, so the collision here means we can only detect one per-user interpreter per-version. We haven't received many complaints about this, so we assume that not many people install both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Python. However, we do it all the time, so we'd be happy with a fix just for us :) As far as the redirection goes, that is largely a compatibility 'feature' for running 32-bit programs on 64-bit Windows. HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Wow6432Node is not official (even though there's some buggy software that thinks it is...) and doesn't mean anything (while the one in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE does). The intent is that software uses differently named keys when storing different settings. Having Python\PythonCore\3.4, 3.4-32 and/or 3.4-64 seems appropriate to me (where the 3.4 value keeps the current last-one-wins behaviour). Out of interest, what other issues exist for the per-user installation? I normally prefer it because I like keeping the DLLs out of System32, and I practically never hit any issues (Python 2.5 has one with virtualenv, but that's about it). -- nosy: +steve.dower ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20883 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
