GeezerVison is showing github.com — Cannot install ScriptCS via Chocolatey for multiple user accounts. · Issue #874 · scriptcs/scriptcs
Cannot install ScriptCS via Chocolatey for multiple user accounts. #874DescriptionAfter ScriptCS is downloaded to C:\ProgramData\chocolatey\lib\ScriptCs... I think chocolateyInstall.ps1 is run which copies the files to the LOCALAPPDATA\scriptcs folder for the current user. This works for the first account but when I log into the system as another user and attempt to install for that user it fails because ScriptCS is already installed. Because of how our security here is set up I can't elevate my account but instead run programs as a different accounts with different privileges. I know this is an inconvenient setup but my employer has lots of computers so I don't think I am unique in this situation.
As a short term (or possibly "short term") work around would it be safe for me to add C:\ProgramData\chocolatey\lib\ScriptCs.{version}\tools\scriptcs to the system path? Activityadamralph commented on Dec 18, 2014 @aarondandy thanks for raising. That's a nasty one. The work around you describe should be just fine. scriptcs.exe doesn't care where it is run from. We should have a think about how to solve this generally, though. aarondandy commented on Dec 20, 2014 ContributorAuthor More actions Would it be crazy to package this into an MSI with WiX and install that way instead? adamralph commented on Dec 21, 2014 The problem stems from the fact that we are performing a user specific installation (LOCALAPPDATA) but the installation also has a sytem-wide component (C:\ProgramData\chocolatey), but chocolatey has no facility to repeat just the 'user' part for another user. Or maybe it has, but we're just not using it. We could choose to switch to a pure system-wide installation, but that can be achieved without the use of an MSI. I'd like to avoid MSI creation if at all possible since using WiX is a risk to mental health. I'd prefer to explore other options before considering it. aarondandy commented on Dec 21, 2014 ContributorAuthor More actions Yeah WiX is a pain but if somebody in IT is asked to prepare a system with scritcs and Ruby they would install ruby just fine and then call you back with "WTF is chocolatey and why do I need to type a virus script into powershell to install it?" I think having an MSI release would help with adoption. adamralph commented on Dec 21, 2014 That's a fair point, and a reality which is sad in many ways. tillig commented on Jan 15, 2015 Just ran into this myself. Dos there need to be any user-specific portion to the install? If scriptcs doesn't care where it's run from, could it use the built-in Chocolatey mechanism to add a batch redirect to the chocolatey/lib/scriptcs.*/scriptcs.exe?
I could be over-simplifying here, I just see stuff like the putty.portable package able to put in a near-zero install and magic happens. adamralph commented on Jan 15, 2015 @scriptcs/core can anyone chime on this? The choco package was put together before my time.
I think the current behaviour may have been driven by the desire for the installer to not require admin rights. aarondandy commented on Jan 15, 2015 ContributorAuthor More actions With an MSI it can detect if you are elevated (or ask) and install to the appropriate location. Also, the "this user" or "all users" question can be asked. But that is going down the WiX road. On a related note @dealproc mentioned in JabbR that they have experience with WiX ;) tillig commented on Jan 19, 2015 I found a solution to this (PR #903) by modifying the Chocolatey package contents so the new Chocolatey package should enable a single install on the machine to work for multiple users. No WiX required. changed the title [-]Install ScriptCS via Chocolatey for multiple user accounts.[/-] [+]Cannot install ScriptCS via Chocolatey for multiple user accounts.[/+] on Jan 19, 2015aarondandy commented on Jan 19, 2015 ContributorAuthor More actions I think that PR closes this issue for sure and will satisfy the majority of people. I still think there will be a small group that for one reason or another will prefer an msi file but I wont push that as I don't think the complexity is worth it. Perhaps a zip distribution would satisfy them as an alternative, should that issue be raised in the future. khellang commented on Jan 20, 2015 This should be resolved with #903 😄
MetadataMetadataDevelopmentNo branches or pull requestsIssue actions |