"Johann MacDonagh" <johann.macdonagh.no@spam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:j02dmi$1t2c$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 7/17/2011 6:41 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Johann MacDonagh"<johann.macdonagh.no@spam.gmail.com>  wrote in message
>> news:ivvhtr$2j94$1@digitalmars.com...
>> - Did you get that after it prompted you for a "yes/no", or did it not
>> get
>> that far?
>>
>> - Was that message displayed in the cmd prompt or in a dialog box?
>
> No prompt at all, and it was in the console window.
>

Thanks. There's a point where it checks the registry to see if DMD already exists in the system PATH (and will prompt the user for further action if it's there, because it would get in the way of DVM's "default compiler" feature). Turns out I forgot to use read-only access (instead of read/write) to open the key for that check.

> You can always create a restricted account for yourself to test it out.

Yea, clearly I should have done that ;)

> It will fire if you try dvm-installer.exe install dvm on a machine that already has dvm installed.

Turns out the problem occurs when trying to install DVM on any limited Windows user account, regardless of an existing DVM or DMD, and regardless of XP/Win7 or 32bit/64bit. Pretty bad since DVM currently only installs per-user. /facepalm

I've fixed it and submitted a pull request (and this time I tested it with limited user accounts on both XP and Vista):

https://bitbucket.org/doob/dvm/pull-request/2/

Interesting.. I've tested it on win7 with admin rights but with UAC set to max, and it didn't complain, so I assumed it would work without admin rights too.

"Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1759.1311050894.14074.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com...
> Interesting.. I've tested it on win7 with admin rights but with UAC set to max, and it didn't complain, so I assumed it would work without admin rights too.

Including v0.3.0? (The part that was messing up wasn't in any of the earlier Windows betas of DVM.)

No I think I've only tested the beta.

On 7/19/2011 5:52 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> No I think I've only tested the beta.

Yeah, the beta didn't complain either, only this new version. Also, it won't trigger UAC (because we're not asking to elevate), it just fails to open.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:j0327g$1ci$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> I've fixed it and submitted a pull request (and this time I tested it with limited user accounts on both XP and Vista):
>
> https://bitbucket.org/doob/dvm/pull-request/2/
>

If anyone wants to use the fixed version (before the pull request gets merged and a new release issued), I've uploaded a precompiled binary:

http://www.semitwist.com/download/app/dvm-0.3.0_FIXED-win.exe

(I'm trying to put it up here too:

https://bitbucket.org/Abscissa256/dvm/downloads

But it's taking absolutely forever...)

I know this is maybe obvious for linux geeks, but your shell command
won't work like this:
wget -O dvm https://bitbucket.org/doob/dvm/downloads/dvm-0.3.0-linux-32
&& chmod +x dvm && ./dvm install dvm

Because you have to call this before executing dvm:
chmod +x dvm

Am 01.08.2011 22:53, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic:
> I know this is maybe obvious for linux geeks, but your shell command
> won't work like this:
> wget -O dvm https://bitbucket.org/doob/dvm/downloads/dvm-0.3.0-linux-32
> &&  chmod +x dvm&&  ./dvm install dvm
>
> Because you have to call this before executing dvm:
> chmod +x dvm

This is included in the command above?

Wow! Indeed it is. I really don't know what to say. It didn't work when I tried it, but it does if I manually call chmod. Hillarious.