Re: [jasspa] Search path issue -- CWD, $HOME
- Meino Christian Cramer wrote:
> From: Thomas Hundt <thundt@...>Well after all of that I'm still not convinced of a problem under NORMAL use. Which the
> Subject: Re: [jasspa] Search path issue -- CWD, $HOME
> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:35:20 -0700
> Hihihihi....think of a newbie like me, who tries to create a new file
> containing macros which "reconfigure" or add new features to the
> behaviour of ME for editing just this kind of files! What a confusion
> will rise in my head then !!! This will be a new definition of the
> word "Recursion", muhahahahaha!
> BE WARNED ! NEVER EDIT A FILE IN THAT DIRECTORY IN WHICH YOU ARE
> EDITING THAT FILE !
> Hahahahhahahaha !.....
> (sorry...this isn't meant negatively in ANY way...just my imagination
> overruns myself :O)))
scenario that we use. For a normal install then the macros are installed in a location that
is not normally that accessible:-
c:/Program Files/JASSPA/MicroEmacs/macros - You should not edit in here.
c:/Program Files/JASSPA/MicroEmacs/company - Yo can edit in here - supposed to be global.
c:/Document Settings/<user>/Application Data/jasspa/ - You edit in here for local changes.
/opt/jasspa/macros - You cannot edit in here as it is owned by root
/opt/jasspa/company - Root may add macros in here for all users.
$(HOME)/.jasspa - You edit in here for local changes
You do not create .emf files anywhere else - a simple rule.
The ./ directory is very useful this allows us to do things like the CD-ROM image where you
can run ME without installation and it finds all of its macros. It is also used under
Windows and DOS where there is no burnt in search path and the executable directory is used
to locate the macros with no configuration information.
I will admit that you can run into problems, especially with a new release, where a user
file shadows a macro file and the results are unexpected. Most of the time when we are
developing new macros then we have to cope with multiple macros issues (as you can imaging
we typically have more than one set of complete macros and different versions of a binary
image at the same time). In this instance I think there is something in the help that tells
you on a new release you are advised to move your macro shadow out of the way to make it in
accessible and then install your existing macros to make sure that there are not any problems.
So despite the complaints I am still not convinced that it needs to change.
- The problem is not when one creates macros in the out-of-the-way
.../macros directory; the problem is when one creates macros in one's
HOME directory or some other place where one runs the program from.
Which has happened to me when I pushed an updated company file (or, more
subtly, mycpp.emf) to a remote machine via FTP, more than once.
Loading things from CWD is an invisible side effect, which is bad style,
even if you don't agree with the fact it is a security hole.
The solution is trivial: The program should look in CWD if MEPATH is not
set. (I.e., the default MEPATH value, internally, should be just "./".)
If people really want it to load from "./" they can add that to
MEPATH. I think this satisfies all concerns.
Jon Green writes:
> Well after all of that I'm still not convinced of a problem under NORMAL use. Which the
> scenario that we use. For a normal install then the macros are installed in a location that
> is not normally that accessible:-
> You do not create .emf files anywhere else - a simple rule.
> The ./ directory is very useful this allows us to do things like the CD-ROM image where you
> can run ME without installation and it finds all of its macros. It is also used under
> So despite the complaints I am still not convinced that it needs to change.