nunit-dev team mailing list archive

["Justin Daubenmire" <jdaubenmire@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Andreas,

I'm a bit behind on emails but I have an inno script that puts a registry 
key in place to always run the application as an admin so the user doesn't 
have to use any UAC stuff to get the app to run.

I can send you the registry key if you wanted to use that in your setup 
script.

Feel free to disregard this post if you have already fixed this up or if 
this is not what you had in mind.

/Justin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schlapsi" <a.schlapsi@xxxxxx>
To: "'NUnit Developer Mailing List'" <nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Nunit-dev] Installation layout for NUnit V3


> Hi Charlie,
>
> I've just pushed my commits on the installer. There are still some
> issues with UAC on Vista, which I'd like to solve. Besides, it requires
> admin privileges for now.
>
> I thought about a folder structure similar to your proposal, but I was
> too conservative. I agree with you. I changed the folder structure of
> the installer to this:
>
> NUnit
>  Framework
>    3.0
>      net-1.1   (if available)
>      net-2.0   (if available)
>    3.1
>      net-1.1
>      net-2.0
>
> If you use the Custom setup type the installer will let you choose to
> install the assemblies in the GAC. The checkbox appears after the
> feature tree. The installer defines two components for the framework
> assembly with conditions which are mutually exclusive. I'm not content
> with the solution, since it duplicates the definition of the components
> for the assemblies and it causes some warnings from the ICE validation.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> Charlie Poole wrote:
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > Cool! I'd like to do a snapshot with it included.
> >
> > Putting Framework under nunit-3.0 seems to imply that the
> > version numbers will be in synch. But imagine some future
> > user who is running the 3.0 Gui but has tests that use
> > the 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 frameworks - which we released
> > separately as improvements were added.
> >
> > Therefore, I think this should be (something like):
> >
> > NUnit
> >   Framework
> >      3.0
> >      3.1
> >      3.2
> >   NUnit Gui
> >      3.0
> >
> > OR
> >
> > NUnitFramework
> >    3.0
> >    3.1
> >    3.2
> > NUnit 3.0
> >
> > OR
> >
> > NUnitFramework
> >    3.0
> >    3.1
> >    3.2
> > SomeOtherNameForTheGUI 3.0 (or 1.0?)
> >
> > Any other ideas?
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nunit-dev-bounces+charlie=nunit.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:nunit-dev-bounces+charlie=nunit.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > t] On Behalf Of Andreas Schlapsi
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 4:48 AM
> > > To: 'NUnit Developer Mailing List'
> > > Subject: Re: [Nunit-dev] Installation layout for NUnit V3
> > >
> > > Hi Charlie,
> > >
> > > I created a prototype for the NUnit Framework Installer
> > > yesterday. It packages the NUnit Framework for .NET 1.1 and
> > > .NET 2.0 (and later for .NET 3.5 and 4.0) and suppresses all
> > > variants in the feature tree without corresponding .NET
> > > version installed on the target computer.
> > >
> > > It installs the framework assemblies under <Program Files>\NUnit
> > > 3.0\Framework\net-1.1 or <Program Files>\NUnit 3.0\Framework\net-2.0.
> > >
> > > What about documentation? Will the framework documentation be
> > > separated?
> > >
> > > Andreas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev
> Post to     : nunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~nunit-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp