> This UAC behavior is controlled by bit 3 of the word count property in
> the summary information stream - specifically the legacy value zero
> requests elevation. Unfortunately, it's not feasible to transform or
> otherwise change this at run-time, so you have to know ahead of time.
> If it's set
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Mark Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This UAC behavior is controlled by bit 3 of the word count property in
>> the summary information stream - specifically the legacy value zero
>> requests elevation. Unfortunately, it's not feasible to transform or
>> otherw
> Right. This prompt-at-execute-sequence behavior corresponds to bit 3
> being zero. However this means it will always prompt for elevation
> unless it is already elevated. Thus it is not really capable of doing
> a non-administrator per-user install on Vista.
Yeah - I stand corrected - a "per-use
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
> I just finished a PEP 3121 implementation, uploaded at
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/1962
>
> It contains all the API changes proposed in the PEP,
> and updates all modules to conform to a minimal level
> of the API. I'd like to commit the change later today,
> so t
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
>> I just finished a PEP 3121 implementation, uploaded at
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1962
>>
>> It contains all the API changes proposed in the PEP,
>> and updates all modules to conform to
> I downloaded the package to confirm, and indeed the "UAC Compliant"
> checkbox on ORCA's summary information stream view is not checked.
> (It's a bad name for it, but it does correspond, inverted, to that
> bit.)
Thanks. I'll try to integrate this with the next beta releases -
that's bit 3 of P
> So, when all modules are changed to properly support multiple interpreters,
> it may be possible to implement a module combining the benefits of
> both threading and multiprocessing - moving computation to a separate
> interpreter (with its own GIL) without the need to marshal data
> across proc
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. I'll try to integrate this with the next beta releases -
> that's bit 3 of PID_WORDCOUNT, right?
>
> I hesitated setting it, as MSDN says setting it means
>
> "Elevated privileges are not required to install thi
[Getting slightly off-topic for py3k, but relevant to our universe anyway]
Hi Michael,
> Yes, that's the right bit. However your concern is spot on - if you
> set the bit, it will never display the UAC prompt. That's what I
> referred to in my previous message with "it can only successfully
All,
I've been sick since Saturday and still don't feel up to much. I've
collected a severe email backlog going back to June 6th. If there's
anything someone really needs me to look at ASAP (e.g. a BDFL decision
affecting the impending beta release) please send me an email (a
followup to this thre
Thomas Heller wrote:
So, when all modules are changed to properly support multiple interpreters,
it may be possible to implement a module combining the benefits of
both threading and multiprocessing - moving computation to a separate
interpreter (with its own GIL) without the need to marshal da
import socket
if __name__ == '__main__':
print("main")
udp = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET,socket.SOCK_DGRAM)
udp.sendto("1",0,('127.0.0.1',3722))
udp.close()
*output:*
main
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Python30\Projects\udp.py", line 6, in
udp.sendto("1",0,('
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Long Ge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> import socket
>
> if __name__ == '__main__':
> print("main")
> udp = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET,socket.SOCK_DGRAM)
> udp.sendto("1",0,('127.0.0.1',3722))
> udp.close()
>
> output:
> main
> Traceback (most recent
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:44 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-06-09 07:20, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:19 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2008-06-03 01:29, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Guido v
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Mark Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Getting slightly off-topic for py3k, but relevant to our universe anyway]
>
> Hi Michael,
> Just to be clear, you are saying it is *impossible* to have a single .MSI
> file that, based on a user preference, either a)
15 matches
Mail list logo
