(In reply to comment #26)
> FWIW, I think an improved version of Dan's patch would be acceptable,
> after testing with some more installers. MS installers are good
> candidates since they seem to consistently check the result of
> CoInitialize().
I'd be happy to run my application test suite on any candidate patches..
(In reply to comment #26)
> FWIW, I think an improved version of Dan's patch would be acceptable,
> after testing with some more installers. MS installers are good
> candidates since they seem to consistently check the result of
> CoInitialize().
I'd be happy to run my application test suite on any candidate patches..