Phil, ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Phil Holmes [[email protected]] Sent: 24 June 2011 10:02 To: [email protected] Subject: Windows/DOS PATH statement again
I normally install each new version of Lilypond as it's released. I never uninstall the old version, since I use it for testing. As a result, my PATH statement gets an increasing number of entries similar to: C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPondV2.14.0\usr\bin;C:\Program Files (x86)\LilyPondV2.15.2\usr\bin. This has two effects: running Lilypond from the command line (which I never actually do) runs the oldest version, since it's first on the PATH statement; and eventually the PATH entry becomes too long and most of it is lost, stopping me running many DOS commands. Question is: is this a bug in the install process? It doesn't particularly worry me now, because I know about it and prune my PATH statement every now and then. I presume (though I've not checked) that uninstalling lily also nukes the extra PATH entry. But it seems to me that a new install _should_ over-write the PATH statement of a previous install. Anyone else think so? ----------------------- No it isn't a bug. It just depends on how the installer part is coded (at least from the limited experience I have had with my own company's devs - we use installsheild) If I install product A.0 and then an update comes along A.1, and the installer allows an in-place update, then keep everything that A.0 had (assuming the PATH is the same of course). If new version B.0 is released and there is no upgrade path or the software developer decides A.x should be un-installed then the installer should pop up 'Hey! You have version A.x installed you cannot install or update to B.0 please un-install A.x first'. What you do is not 'usual' so the installer is not coded to check for other versions of LP and then deal with that accordingly. As we don't set our paths to contain the version of LP as part of the PATH (like .NET for instance - where each iteration of a full release has its own separate PATH and files) then we run into this problem. As far as I can tell for 'normal' use where someone installs, uninstalls and installs the next version it all works. But not if we keep installing new versions again and again. I never presume to tell the devs things I know nothing about, but I *expect* we could make a simple check for the PATH statement and not add a new one if it already exists. James _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
