[Ross]

Bottom line, I think 291 needs to come out so that all this business with bugs and the temp file thing will be history and then everyone can get back to playing, modding, or meta-modding (or all of the above!)

[Erich Lendermon]

I really don't mean to imply anything about Bash here as this really goes for any software you use...
As much as I'm sure PacificMorrowind and any other dev wants you all to try the latest version so the newest wave of bugs can be swatted. From a user perspective, why exactly do you want to upgrade? Unless the new version offers you something you yourself are missing, then what is the point? Do you go and get a new car every year just because the manufacturer shipped a new model?

If you all want classic then 287 seems to be the one, but that is how it is - we update for the new features and as we do we find issues that perhaps the developers can't themselves foresee. Why do we find them? Because we play the game and mod it a lot.
Something that the developers don't seem to do (as much).

Yes, well said. See my comment above.
Yes, devs are generally busy developing instead of playing. That certainly isn't a bad thing.
You also have to remember that there is infinite variations in peoples setup. It's impossible for the devs to test every angle even if they had the time and manpower.
Sometimes there is just plain and simple human error. Simply repackaging a new version for release can be a nightmare, nevermind the potential for mistakes within the code itself.
Wrye Bash contains somewhere around 150,000 lines of code. Just being remotely close to bug-free is a huge feat on it's own.

So having classic versus expert seems to be a proposal to fork the development and then it would result in requests to have classic get some of those new features. Better to take a survey of what have been the most stable versions in the last year or so. I recall Wrye Turning out up to 4 versions in one night.

A fork is almost always a bad plan and I don't think it would happen unless someone is willing to maintain it. And maintaining a fork really svcks.
I really don't see any issue with Bash having flakey releases. This latest spat was unfortunate, but hardly normal and hopefully a lesson learned.

[Nomee]

Every now and then I get this error when closing WB 290:
cPickle.dump(data,out,-1)
MemoryError

Task Manager typically shows 1,750,000+ mem usage for pythonw.exe when this happens.

I must use task manager to end the WB, and then the next time I open WB, what ever I did has to be re-done.

Is there some method of closing WB when there is excessive memory? Or a way to purge?
I think there needs to be some sort of memory management message that warns you when you are getting close to the threshold, whatever that might be.

memory limit would of course depend on what memory the system has, what memory is used by other processes... by unless you are using a 64bit (and then I don't know) I would think the limit would in most cases be *about* 1.8G...
basically probably most important to do here is to fix some more memory leaks but on you end you could try using menu->Save Settings before taskman killing to see if it will work (might run into same problem)... or try closing other programs to ensure it has enough memory and try again... but I should find a way to work around that but I think it'll be difficult (see the bug tracker for more technical thoughts from Gaticus... and my overdue response when I respond).
(IIRC last time I got that error was back in 273 or so; it isn't a new problem, however more likely now than previously I would say as more things have been added, more possible memory leaks (and my coding skill is certainly not as good as Wrye's - though it is getting better despite the bugs last version)).

Hello
So I've been experimenting with using http://waalx.com/RealSwordsForum/viewforum.php?f=13 in my latest load order, It is alpha and there are issues that I've been slowly hashing out. The forums for WAC are near dead and this seems more a bash issue so here goes.

that doesn't sound good and does sound like bash choking up for some reason... however until I manage to download the latest WAC not much I can do to test... it'll probably take a year or so (okay probably take a couple weeks but I hate large files with dialup and am prone to exageration when talking about times that files will take)... also have to get around to getting logged in to the wac forum and dling it... hmmm maybe instead you could just pm me a link/email (pacificmorrowindgmail) me a zip of just the esp/esm files (and any external WAC patches you are using)?
(and done forumry from last thread... now to catch up on this thread... going a bit slow lately compared to you fast repliers )
Pacific Morrowind

[Roddy]

This dicussion has made me realize that for the past year Oblivion has been a game about managing mods more than playing, for me. I got caught up in managing my mods and BAIN installations more than about actually starting a game and playing it through. I understand that once you play it through once, then a few more times as a different character, it gets old. So then I look for mods to change the gameplay, like TIE, FCOM, ROM, realism mods. So I try these and after 15 hours of gameplay something new comes along or gets upgraded, and I switch to that, reorganizing my mods (takes just as long as I played).

So now I remember why I started using Wrye, and it was to make my mods work together. And now I know why I use BAIN, to make it easy to install a new mod or troubleshoot a load order.

+1

Well - us fast repliers

A pleasant walk a pleasant talk
Along the briny beach
lol

Now that it all winds down a bit - I'd like to summarize my points : I think it is clear from the discussion that we use bash in different ways - from n0ob to pro, from player to modder etc - and that bash cares for us all. This should not change. I, like our friend above, have been managing a collection of mods, and found managing it in my HDD to be a chore - while managing them via bash with its tools - a charm (you got to believe me Psymon - or read my posts more carefully - I think you misunderstood some of my practices ).
I would like to be able to continue doing so.
Btw those huge bash Installers lists I took from Tomlong (who made me aware of BAIN) and thought it was the norm (still haven't bet his 700+, goes without saying).

The matter of multiple installs arose somewhat late in the discussion - and in Oblivion - bash needs to be rethought to support it evidently - rethought carefully. I intend to install Nehrim once I install Ob and I'll be sure to report back. I think for the moment INIzer is the way to (I'll) go certainly. For modded and vanilla installs, that is perfectly possible with bash already - been using it constantly - the dual boot Vanilla/SI included (I intend on setting this up correctly this time and report back).

In short I find using the installers tab to manage one's collection of installed mods quite efficient (and I repeat not my idea at all) - the only drawback being the markers not being collapsible. No, not for someone mirroring tesnexus, won't do. I would not/could not join the dance err go back to HDD days (without right click > go to nexus, export conflicts or hide .esps out of my face). Or unhide

And happy 291 everyone

[Far'ed K.G.h.m]

Folks, I'm presently still on WB v278 and I think of updating to v290 which seems to be the latest version. I note that 290 requires certain updated and additional Python stuff. Now I'm just a little bit confused and need your guidance:

1.) Here in post 1 it says it requires Python 2.6.6 (plus other stuff like psyco which i presently do not have at all) but then it goes on to say one could just as well download the WB03 pack (dated July 2010) from Tesnexus. But in the WB03 download description on TESN it is stated that it contains only Python 2.6.5 ?? So do I need 2.6.6 or 2.6.5 for WB v290 ?

Right now I'm on Python 2.6.4 and comtypes 0.6.1 and wxPython 2.8.10.1

2.) Do I have to properly uninstall whatever python i presently have on my rig, or can i just install the new versions over the present ones? I don't want to clutter my system more than necessary. I do not want to have redundant Phyton (or any of the ancillary related stuff) around.

All my present Python files are contained in their own folder c:\python26.

3.) I also use PyFFie and this uses Python too, IIRC. Do you happen to know if the present PyFFie works with Python 2.6.5 or 2.6.6 that I need for WB ? This question however is secondary really, as I have pyffied pretty much all my meshes and do not really NEED to do anything in this field at the moment. So if you don't know, no problem.

Thanks so much for your help!

[.X chantelle .x Smith]

Folks, I'm presently still on WB v278 and I think of updating to v290 which seems to be the latest version. I note that 290 requires certain updated and additional Python stuff. Now I'm just a little bit confused and need your guidance:

1.) Here in post 1 it says it requires Python 2.6.6 (plus other stuff like psyco which i presently do not have at all) but then it goes on to say one could just as well download the WB03 pack (dated July 2010) from Tesnexus. But in the WB03 download description on TESN it is stated that it contains only Python 2.6.5 ?? So do I need 2.6.6 or 2.6.5 for WB v290 ?

Right now I'm on Python 2.6.4 and comtypes 0.6.1 and wxPython 2.8.10.1

2.) Do I have to properly uninstall whatever python i presently have on my rig, or can i just install the new versions over the present ones? I don't want to clutter my system more than necessary. I do not want to have redundant Phyton (or any of the ancillary related stuff) around.

All my present Python files are contained in their own folder c:\python26.

3.) I also use PyFFie and this uses Python too, IIRC. Do you happen to know if the present PyFFie works with Python 2.6.5 or 2.6.6 that I need for WB ? This question however is secondary really, as I have pyffied pretty much all my meshes and do not really NEED to do anything in this field at the moment. So if you don't know, no problem.

Thanks so much for your help!

1. You need Python v2.6.5 but 2.6.6 will also work. WryePython03 will contain everything you need and is recommended.
2. I think it's safe to install over top of your old version. But I don't think there is any harm in uninstalling it first either, just to be sure that any redundant stuff is cleaned up. (Python installs stuff in more than just the Python26 directory)
3. The latest version of PyFFi should work.

[Tanika O'Connell]

Hi all,

I post my query here as I think WB may solve my problem:

- in my inventory I have 2 kinds of boar meat called:

- Boar Meat, 10 septims, 2 feathers and

- Meat, Boar, 20 septims, 2 feathers(this is from T.I.E., I suspect).

I`d like to have just one kind of this ingredient. Any help much appreciated.

LO from WB 290 attached below. BOSS 1.61 with latest masterlist used.

Spoiler

Active Mod Files:00  Oblivion.esm01  All Natural Base.esm  [Version 1.0]02  MD_Saddle_Master.esm03  BathingMod_Base.esm04  Unofficial Oblivion Patch.esp  [Version 3.3.1]05  DLCShiveringIsles.esp06  Unofficial Shivering Isles Patch.esp  [Version 1.4.0]07  All Natural.esp  [Version 1.0]08  All Natural - SI.esp  [Version 1.0]09  Enhanced Water v2.0 HD.esp**  Enhanced Water v2.0 HD - SI Addon.esp  [Version 0.1]0A  AmbientTownSounds.esp0B  MIS Low Wind.esp0C  MIS New Sounds Optional Part.esp0D  Atmospheric Oblivion.esp0E  PCSoundImoen.esp  [Version 2.6]0F  Rainbows.esp10  All Natural - Real Lights.esp  [Version 1.0]11  Cities Alive At Night.esp12  WindowLightingSystem.esp13  CDM-Duel.esp14  Chapel Tithe.esp15  EasySpellRemovalv1.esp16  kuerteeSittableRocks.esp17  SoT_Holiday.esp18  Enhanced Economy.esp  [Version 4.3.1]19  FF_Real_Thirst.esp1A  Duke Patricks - Friendship Ring For Companion Detection.esp  [Version 1.8]1B  Streamline 3.1.esp1C  DLCHorseArmor.esp1D  DLCHorseArmor - Unofficial Patch.esp  [Version 1.0.5]1E  DLCOrrery.esp1F  DLCOrrery - Unofficial Patch.esp  [Version 1.0.3]20  DLCVileLair.esp21  DLCVileLair - Unofficial Patch.esp  [Version 1.0.5]22  DLCMehrunesRazor.esp23  DLCMehrunesRazor - Unofficial Patch.esp  [Version 1.0.4]24  DLCSpellTomes.esp25  VampireCurePotions 1.0.esp26  XSPipeMod.esp  [Version 1.2]27  Dude Wheres My Horse.esp28  MD Saddlebags v3.0.esp29  MD Saddlebags v3.0 Alternative Trader Script.esp2A  DLCThievesDen.esp2B  DLCThievesDen - Unofficial Patch.esp  [Version 1.0.5]2C  DLCThievesDen - Unofficial Patch - SSSB.esp  [Version 1.0.4]2D  kuerteeWanderingEncounters.esp2E  TIE.esp  [Version 1.37]2F  BogwaterDowns.esp30  A's Elven Swords.esp31  JolardHome.esp32  000lute.esp33  za_bankmod.esp34  DLCFrostcrag.esp35  DLCFrostcrag - Unofficial Patch.esp  [Version 1.0.4]36  Knights.esp37  Knights - Unofficial Patch.esp  [Version 1.0.9]38  Enemy Actors Use Powers 0.1.1.esp39  Birthsigns Expanded.esp  [Version 3.11.]3A  DS Less Predictable Respawn.esp  [Version 1.1]3B  HelmetFOV.esp3C  kuerteeInventoryIsABackpack.esp3D  Oblivion - Soulgems.esp3E  kuerteeGoldIsAnInventoryItem.esp3F  SRJIrresponsibleHorses.esp40  Roleplaying Dialogues.esp41  RH 1.4 [non-MMM] with Grumble Sounds.esp42  BathingMod.esp43  BathingMod_Bathrooms.esp44  RealSleepExtended.esp  [Version 2.5]45  RenGuardOverhaul.esp46  Duke Patricks Basic Denock Arrows.esp47  nGCD.esp48  nGCD Oghma Infinium.esp49  Immediate Character Generation.esp4A  CuteElf11.esp  [Version 1.2]4B  1em_Vilja.esp  [Version 2.3.2]4C  Rabies Dire Wolf Companion.esp4D  NoLoad.esp4E  [GFX]_Initial_Glow-all.esp4F  PracticeTargets_OBSE.esp50  Beast Tongue  Evolved.esp51  Duke Patricks - Magic you can believe in.esp**  All Natural - Indoor Weather Filter For Mods.esp  [Version 1.0]52  Bashed Patch, 0.esp

Regards, Haldir

Yes Wrye Bash can fix that... or an mergeable esp based patch will work as well.
However I don't have TIE so I can't confirm that the second one is from TIE/make the patch right now... I'll download TIE and see but that could take a while. So best method for you would be to confirm what esp/m each boar meat is coming from using FormID Finder or similar mod, and either make a patch yourself, make a formid switcher yourself, or report back with confirmation what esp/m each is coming from (as in would likely make it happen a bit quicker).

Edit2: I present this one to PacificMorrowind, when he has finished his participation with the Halloween mod http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=1782343roundtuit.jpg

thanks... oh no ouch now I have no excuse to not get stuff done ... oh well except for time... I can still use that excuse :rofl:

I have a whole collection of round tuit's but it still doesn't help me to get things done. :shame:
I also have a straight tuit since the round ones weren't working, but it doesn't help either.

Maybe I should carve some or myself out of wood... that should help except for the time taken to carve them would take time out of what I needed them for. oh well I'll have to try one of the straight tuits

Hi all,

I'm trying to help Underground09 get his ROM mod release in BAIN format. I have a couple quick questions on best practices. He has an optional ini file that, if present, will configure the mod for use by a non-vanilla-race PC. However, if I create a "Complex" structure BAIN archive, the sub-package that contains that ini (it is the only file in that sub-package) does not appear. The choices seem to be:
1) put the ini in a separate archive and tell the user they have to manually install it if using a non-vanilla race
2) put the ini in one of the sub-projects that contains an .esp file and tell the user they have to manually delete it if they are using a vanilla race
I guess I could ask Underground09 to rewrite the code to accommodate, but is there another option that makes things easier for the user without requiring a rewrite?

yep... edit Wrye Bash to accept subPackages as long as they have an file with the name of *.ini ( of course as well as the existing bsa/esp/esm etc.). Done and testing right now

Also, the mod installs an OBSE plugin (CustomSpellIcons.dll). I noticed haama's suggestion in feature request: "Install OBSE Plugins - ID: 2985268". Is this likely to be implemented? Or should just I package the OBSE plugin as a separate package that must be manually installed?

I'm working on that lately... had some private discusions about it and what I've roughed out is ofcourse not perfect but is pretty good (ie as safe as possible without being extremely annoying - still a bit annoying and a bit of safetly loss but I think it'll be a good compromise)... I'll say more when I have at least a working sample.

Wow waiting for pacific morrowind to get to http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1120997-relz-wrye-bash-thread-52/page__view__findpost__p__16547764 is a real practice in patience.

and stretched your patience for almost a week more even!
Pacific Morrowind

[Leilene Nessel]

I'm working on that lately... had some private discusions about it and what I've roughed out is ofcourse not perfect but is pretty good (ie as safe as possible without being extremely annoying - still a bit annoying and a bit of safetly loss but I think it'll be a good compromise)... I'll say more when I have at least a working sample.

Maybe WB could have build-in checks (size & hash) for verified dll, exe, etc.. , and display a warning, but with a message that WB know that file, and it should be ok to install.

Could be extended to BOSS having the information about these file types, and WB would display a message that BOSS know that file, and it should be ok to install.

[Zach Hunter]

Maybe WB could have build-in checks (size & hash) for verified dll, exe, etc.. , and display a warning, but with a message that WB know that file, and it should be ok to install.
Could be extended to BOSS having the information about these file types, and WB would display a message that BOSS know that file, and it should be ok to install.

"WB knows this file" is a simple statement, but is unfortunately an extremely difficult claim to make. Who would be the lucky person appointed to audit all the source code for each dll? And even if the published source were audited, and we trust the auditor, most (all?) dll plugins are distributed in binary form, so there would no guarantees of safety, just like if it were closed source. Security and trust are really really tricky businesses. Companies like Symantec make and spend millions on it each year. I believe this kind of endorsemant by Wrye Bash is beyond our ability to provide.

[Mackenzie]

So when using 290 with Nehrim ... each time you open Bash you get a warning that says I'm guessing no developer of bash has Nehrim yet.

Anyway here is what Nehrim does to the oblivion ini:

ugh that is just ugly... the general section is doubled, and has the same settings in a totally different order (and different values) than the first section... yucky ... but both Oblivion only 'sees' the second section of the same name so that's no problem in an in game sort of way. However how to make it work for Bash... I'll have to look into it - inline edit: I think I've got it fixed to work fine.

So in trying do the shadowmap ini tweak (up to 1024 as nehrim sets it at 512 I get this error:

Traceback (most recent call last):  File "I:\Games\Oblivion\Mopy\basher.py", line 7968, in Execute    iniList.data.ini.applyTweakFile(file)  File "I:\Games\Oblivion\Mopy\bosh.py", line 6892, in applyTweakFile    IniFile.applyTweakFile(self,tweakPath)  File "I:\Games\Oblivion\Mopy\bosh.py", line 6733, in applyTweakFile    self.saveSettings(ini_settings)  File "I:\Games\Oblivion\Mopy\bosh.py", line 6886, in saveSettings    IniFile.saveSettings(self,settings)  File "I:\Games\Oblivion\Mopy\bosh.py", line 6696, in saveSettings    elif maSetting and LString(maSetting.group(1)) in sectionSettings:TypeError: argument of type 'NoneType' is not iterable

Same with Joystick off tweak.

Seems the ini tweaks/tab is not working with Nehrim.

seems to be working fine now with my tiny edit... commiting in 673.

From your report above...

Tweak Settings? Actor Strength Encumbrance [u]Multifier[/u]: [8]

You are using Bash v288 or v289. The 'Multifier' typo is fixed in v290, and v288/289 are known to be fairly broken.

Dunno if that will resolve your problem, but since Alt3rn1ty has confirmed that TIE does modify the gmst for encumbrance, I expect so.

The multifier insteadof muliplier was only in the GUI side not in the result side (where it compiled fine) - so that shouldn't have been an issue.

@ITPaladin: Look in your Data/Mopy folder. There's probably a file named pidfile.tmp sitting there. Delete that, and Bash will start. It's the only real annoyance left in 290.

@Bash Team:

BAIN is ignoring the fact that two mods in my install are sharing resources.

Spoiler

meshes\Creatures\zmimics\backward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\body.nif
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\fastforward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\forward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\handtohandattackforwardpower.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\handtohandattackpower.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\handtohandbackward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\handtohandequip.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\handtohandfastforward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\handtohandforward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\handtohandidle.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\handtohandunequip.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\idle.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\recoil.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\skeleton.nif
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\stagger.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\swimbackward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\swimfastforward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\swimforward.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\swimhandtohandattackforwardpower.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\swimhandtohandattackpower.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\swimidle.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\turnleft.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\turnright.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\idleanims\specialidle_getup.kf
meshes\Creatures\zmimics\idleanims\specialidle_hide.kf

Those files are all shared between the Mimics mod, and Feldscar, but BAIN gives no indication of underridden or overridden resources and both mods are green plus.

I did a full data refresh (took nearly 20 minutes!) and BAIN still seems to have no idea this conflict exists.

as long as they share the same CRC they won't show up as conflicted... AFAIK (BAIN is the area of the codebase I'm least familiar with though).

What I'm not familiar with is the Wrye-Bash Saves tab. It will of course show a mismatch between my saves and my post-removal load-order. Is the mismatch something I can safely ignore, or do I need to do something with that right-side window that lets us adjust the master-list? If it needs adjusting, how do I go about it and what do I look for to insure it's done properly?

really the only reason to do adjust the saves load order (at least the only reason I can think of right now) is if you update a mod and the esp name changes and you want to keep a sword (for example) that you received from a mod that (for example) changed name from coolsword v1.esp to coolsword v1.1.esp; then you'd probably want to tell the save that mod coolswordv1.1.esp was the same difference as coolswordv1.esp.
Pacific Morrowind

[Mr.Broom30]

"WB knows this file" is a simple statement, but is unfortunately an extremely difficult claim to make. Who would be the lucky person appointed to audit all the source code for each dll? And even if the published source were audited, and we trust the auditor, most (all?) dll plugins are distributed in binary form, so there would no guarantees of safety, just like if it were closed source. Security and trust are really really tricky businesses. Companies like Symantec make and spend millions on it each year. I believe this kind of endorsemant by Wrye Bash is beyond our ability to provide.

I know that, that is why it also should say "that it should be ok to install." and shouldn't install it without user interaction. The alternative is that people get no information about the file, and will probably install any such file.

[alyssa ALYSSA]

Maybe WB could have build-in checks (size & hash) for verified dll, exe, etc.. , and display a warning, but with a message that WB know that file, and it should be ok to install.

Could be extended to BOSS having the information about these file types, and WB would display a message that BOSS know that file, and it should be ok to install.

basically that but make it a bit more elaborate;
you'd have to enable the option in the ini and it would say more along the lines of
"Wrye Bash recognizes FILENAME as probably valid file however it is a DLL/EXE and hence could potentially be infected with a virus/trojan/rootkit/malicious code.
Are you sure you want to install it? [YES, I understand the risks and want to continue || No]
I think that should cover it fairly well to be both more useable and relatively safer.
What does everyone here think?
Pacific Morrowind

[Nancy RIP]

"Wrye Bash recognizes FILENAME as probably valid file however it is a DLL/EXE and hence could potentially be infected with a virus/trojan/rootkit/malicious code.
Are you sure you want to install it? [YES, I understand the risks and want to continue || No]

+1
:thumbsup:

[Janine Rose]

I think that is all overkill. I think that the act of having to create and edit the bash.ini to enable the ability to install any file type is enough to demonstrate the user knows what they are doing.

It's not Bash's responsibility to babysit the user.
The issue is not if any particular file is valid or malicious. The issue is that the user needs to understand the ramifications of installing certain types of files before Bash makes it easy for them to do so.

[Robert Garcia]

yep... edit Wrye Bash to accept subPackages as long as they have an file with the name of *.ini ( of course as well as the existing bsa/esp/esm etc.). Done and testing right now

awesome. thx. I prepared a project with the following directories:

Spoiler

00 test0/dummy.esp
00 test0/test0.ini
98 test1/test1.ini
99 test2/ini/test2.ini

I'll double check that they all show up.

It's not Bash's responsibility to babysit the user.
The issue is not if any particular file is valid or malicious. The issue is that the user needs to understand the ramifications of installing certain types of files before Bash makes it easy for them to do so.

a popup dialog has two purposes, actually. The first is to make sure the user is aware of the ramifications of installing binary executable files (like dlls). If this is all it did, then I would agree that an ini setting would be sufficient. However, it also tells you that it is going to install a binary file at all, which you might not otherwise know. This is a valid reason for displaying the confirmation dialog every time. Even if you are ok with binary files being installed, it shouldn't be easy to slip one in without you knowing about it.

It would be nice, however, if once a file is confirmed, it /stays/ confirmed (perhaps at the option of the user). If a dll with the same name, file size, and SHA-1 or MD5 hash is installed (can't use CRC here), it should not cause the confirmation dialog to be displayed again. This would allow for hassle-free reinstalls.

[Miguel]

a popup dialog has two purposes, actually. The first is to make sure the user is aware of the ramifications of installing binary files. If this is all it did, then I would agree that an ini setting would be sufficient. However, it also tells you that it is going to install a binary file at all, which you might not otherwise know. This is a valid reason for displaying the confirmation dialog every time. Even if you are ok with binary files being installed, it shouldn't be easy to slip one in without you knowing about it.

It would be nice, however, if once a file is confirmed, it /stays/ confirmed. If a dll with the same name, file size, and SHA-1 or MD5 hash is installed (can't use CRC here), it should not cause the confirmation dialog to be displayed again. This would allow for hassle-free reinstalls.

I wasn't talking about having a popup dialog. I agree about that. What I don't agree with having bash try to identify if a file is safe or not, other than is it a dangerous file type.

[Jennifer Rose]

I wasn't talking about having a popup dialog. I agree about that. What I don't agree with having bash try to identify if a file is safe or not, other than is it a dangerous file type.

you're referring to PM's post? I think "Wrye Bash recognizes FILENAME" there basically means "Wrye Bash has discovered that FILENAME has a '.dll' extension", I don't think he was suggesting the kind of "safe to use" endorsemant H2Odk was writing about.

[Robert Jackson]

you're referring to PM's post? I think "Wrye Bash recognizes FILENAME" there basically means "Wrye Bash has discovered that FILENAME has a '.dll' extension", I don't think he was suggesting the kind of "safe to use" endorsemant H2Odk was writing about.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I was not suggesting a "safe to use" endorsemant. Only that WB could have a list (based on name/size/hash) of known dll plugins for oblivion, and inform that it is on that list and therefore should be safe (not that it is safe). It would provide additional information, without endorsing it.

[Wane Peters]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I was not suggesting a "safe to use" endorsemant. Only that WB could have a list (based on name/size/hash) of known dll plugins for oblivion, and inform that it is on that list and therefore should be safe (not that it is safe). It would provide additional information, without endorsing it.

Either way, it's an endorsemant. Which is not a good idea for Bash to get involved in. The user needs to know for themselves what is safe and what isn't. All potentially dangerous files should be presented to the user as if they may be a serious threat and the user should only install if they really understand what they are doing. Providing any kind of stamp, will give the user a false sense of security.

Somebody also has to maintain such a list to be able to cross reference known files.
Who do you trust? Symantec is accountable, an anonymous person in the modding community is not.
Not to say that anybody is untrustworthy, it's just not a good idea to imply that anybody should be trusted.

You shouldn't even trust your anti-virus program, but most people do. Run three different AV's and they might catch 3 different things.

[clelia vega]

I thought about the list idea - and another take is have the user update their own local list.

But really an ini setting and a pop up window is almost on par with UAC level of annoyance.

@PacificMorrowind - let me know you got that email about WAC ... and thanks.

[darnell waddington]

a popup dialog has two purposes, actually. The first is to make sure the user is aware of the ramifications of installing binary executable files (like dlls). If this is all it did, then I would agree that an ini setting would be sufficient. However, it also tells you that it is going to install a binary file at all, which you might not otherwise know. This is a valid reason for displaying the confirmation dialog every time. Even if you are ok with binary files being installed, it shouldn't be easy to slip one in without you knowing about it.

It would be nice, however, if once a file is confirmed, it /stays/ confirmed (perhaps at the option of the user). If a dll with the same name, file size, and SHA-1 or MD5 hash is installed (can't use CRC here), it should not cause the confirmation dialog to be displayed again. This would allow for hassle-free reinstalls.

+1
And keep in mind that obse plugins might as well have esmS/textures/etc to install - check CSI. I say OBSE plugins cause mainly .dllS we want to install - .exeS not really, they should be rather unpacked and BAIN'ed - right ?
Now - as per list I agree with gaticus - maybe another ini setting like storeListofInstalleddlls=false ?

[Lucky Boy]

I thought about the list idea - and another take is have the user update their own local list.

But really an ini setting and a pop up window is almost on par with UAC level of annoyance.

Why do you need any sort of list at all?
I think a checkbox option on the warning popup to '[ ] Remember my answer for this file.' or a general setting to always remember any files you have already allowed, would do what you want and requires no user-made list. Sort of what myk002 suggested. Keep track of the files that you have already authorized so you don't have see the popup over again for the same file.

[Reanan-Marie Olsen]

Why do you need any sort of list at all?

I don't. I was just offering another take on it if the idea that it would be too much to have a list. If the list is the foot in the door then at least it is a start. Basically, I've thought this whole argument that it is dangerous to have this feature is ridiculous. The root of this is really about politics and trying to not offend Wrye himself. It took forever to get basic recognition of the ini folder from this same root concern.

By not offering support it encourages the user to either add them by hand or use an installer that offers no warning either. Basically no warning either way.

Further, I've yet to hear of one case of my computer blew up because of OBSE plugin so and so (although my game has been ruined by pluggy, but I digress).

Providing an ini setting would be enough for me, but I see the logic in a pop up for each instance (even if the ini is set) because what if a dll or other malicious bit was snuck in and just because it was not in the OBSE/Plugins folder you didn't see it. So I'm ok with a pop up (great idea ... me).

[Add Me]

Why do you need any sort of list at all?
I think a checkbox option on the warning popup to '[ ] Remember my answer for this file.' or a general setting to always remember any files you have already allowed, would do what you want and requires no user-made list. Sort of what myk002 suggested. Keep track of the files that you have already authorized so you don't have see the popup over again for the same file.

Bash will need a list - do not forget to add it in the back up lol
List must store md5 | crc | sha-1 apart of name of course - easy when installing from a 7z

[Amanda Leis]

Ah, if this is indeed the wrong place to post this, let me know - but I've sought help on the matter elsewhere with little results and was directed here.

I've used Wrye Bash frequently through my modding adventures. Let me copy-paste quote myself actually:

I'll start with the fact I've used Wrye Bash quite often without incident in the past (still version 275), until sometime last night.

Without warning, it suddenly refused to launch. I thought that strange since I hadn't downloaded anything new not related to Oblivion much less so, and much less something that would modify the libraries, affect Python, etc. so why was it suddenly not working?

Well, I decided I'd simply uninstall it, Python, all related files, etc, clear all related registry entries, and then do a fresh reinstall from TESNexus, Wrye Python 03a and then Bash 275. And I did. Went to run Wrye Bash.. and odd enough, it still wouldn't launch. I've even updated it (first to 287 and then to 290) just to see if possibly, that may have some play in the matter - no luck.

I've tried all of the basic solutions, read over the Wrye Bash readme and various related message boards on other users who've had issues with it launching, and nothing's seemingly related.

-I run Win7 x64, but my Oblivion folder is outside of my Program Files, my Mopy folder is in the same directory my Oblivion.exe is, etc..
-I've tried running the launcher with both Python and Pythonw.exe to no avail.
-Obviously I have UAC disabled, and I've things set so I have ownership of all files/run all programs as administrator, although I double checked this of course.
-Already checked for pidfile.tmp. No dice.

..and I have a bug dump of:

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "bash.py", line 153, in
main()
File "bash.py", line 139, in main
app = basher.BashApp(False)
File "c:\python26\lib\site-packages\wx-2.8-msw-ansi\wx\_core.py", line 7978, i
n __init__
self._BootstrapApp()
File "c:\python26\lib\site-packages\wx-2.8-msw-ansi\wx\_core.py", line 7552, i
n _BootstrapApp
return _core_.PyApp__BootstrapApp(*args, **kwargs)
File "C:\Users\Haelstrom Fist\Desktop\Gaming\Other\Oblivion\Mopy\basher.py", l
ine 4584, in OnInit
self.InitData(progress)
File "C:\Users\Haelstrom Fist\Desktop\Gaming\Other\Oblivion\Mopy\basher.py", l
ine 4617, in InitData
bosh.modInfos = bosh.ModInfos()
File "C:\Users\Haelstrom Fist\Desktop\Gaming\Other\Oblivion\Mopy\bosh.py", lin
e 7966, in __init__
FileInfos.__init__(self,dirs['mods'],ModInfo)
File "C:\Users\Haelstrom Fist\Desktop\Gaming\Other\Oblivion\Mopy\bosh.py", lin
e 7646, in __init__
self.bashDir.join('Table.pkl')))
File "C:\Users\Haelstrom Fist\Desktop\Gaming\Other\Oblivion\Mopy\bolt.py", lin
e 1025, in __init__
dictFile.load()
File "C:\Users\Haelstrom Fist\Desktop\Gaming\Other\Oblivion\Mopy\bosh.py", lin
e 226, in load
result = bolt.PickleDict.load(self)
File "C:\Users\Haelstrom Fist\Desktop\Gaming\Other\Oblivion\Mopy\bolt.py", lin
e 822, in load
self.data.update(cPickle.load(ins))
File "C:\Users\Haelstrom Fist\Desktop\Gaming\Other\Oblivion\Mopy\bolt.py", lin
e 521, in __hash__
return hash(self._cs)
AttributeError: _cs

It gets as far as http://haelstrom.net/images/rehost/ModInfos.png with a rapidly list of files I can't even screenshot if I try, then immediately exits. Any suggestions at all are much appreciated as I'm relatively stumped.