Re: wintrust: Only return ERROR_SUCCESS in WinVerifyTrust

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:21:57PM -0700, James Hawkins wrote:
> My reasoning for reverting the change is that I'd rather have 5 more
> apps installing, than one app working (and it's Process Explorer of
> all things).

Indeed, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to kill all comment annotations
in the process. I'd rather even add the fact that this return code change
killed more installers than it made apps work.

Andreas

wintrust: Only return ERROR_SUCCESS in WinVerifyTrust

[Molle Bestefich]

James Hawkins wrote:
> I'd rather have 5 more apps installing, than one app working
> (and it's Process Explorer of all things).

Who are you to say which apps are important and which aren't?...

Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Indeed, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to kill all comment annotations
> in the process. I'd rather even add the fact that this return code change
> killed more installers than it made apps work.

+1, stop being lazy James, include the useful parts :-P

wintrust: Only return ERROR_SUCCESS in WinVerifyTrust

[Dan Kegel]

On 8/5/06, Molle Bestefich  wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > I'd rather have 5 more apps installing, than one app working
> > (and it's Process Explorer of all things).
>
> Who are you to say which apps are important and which aren't?...

Not to be harsh, but:

http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/[e-mail]%3E
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=wine-patches&s=hawkins
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=wine-patches&s=molle

- Dan

wintrust: Only return ERROR_SUCCESS in WinVerifyTrust

[Molle Bestefich]

Dan Kegel wrote:
> Not to be harsh, but:

Hehe ;-).

I know, I was just poking, hoping to get an explanation for why James'
particular app might be more beneficial than Process Explorer.

(yes, I like Process Explorer, I use it for debugging from time to time.)

The optimal thing of course would be to have everything working...

wintrust: Only return ERROR_SUCCESS in WinVerifyTrust

[Paul Vriens]

On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 11:43 +0200, Molle Bestefich wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> > Not to be harsh, but:
>
> Hehe ;-).
>
> I know, I was just poking, hoping to get an explanation for why James'
> particular app might be more beneficial than Process Explorer.
>
> (yes, I like Process Explorer, I use it for debugging from time to time.)
>
> The optimal thing of course would be to have everything working...

Hi,

as I was the one introducing it, I thought I had a second look. I just
came back from a short holiday did a 'git pull' tested it with the
'ERROR_SUCCESS in every case' and Process Explorer didn't crash !!!

I did some (positive) regression testing and found that patch:

13163349521e50e7039e188a22b6a814dcfcfc37 is first bad commit
commit 13163349521e50e7039e188a22b6a814dcfcfc37
Author: Alexandre Julliard 
Date:   Fri Jul 21 11:53:24 2006 +0200

ntdll: Add a few more free list entries to the heap.

is actually responsible for making things work with ERROR_SUCCESS as the
default.

Can anybody (Alexandre?) explain why?

Cheers,

Paul.