On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 22:02:14 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote: > > > Am 03.03.2016 um 21:36 schrieb David Wright: > > On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 12:41:28 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote: > > > >> The LilyPond installation is really trouble-less, and I have the feeling > >> that all the confusion came up because someone mixed LilyPond and > >> Frescobaldi. > >> > >> If you don't want to install LilyPond using apt-get (for example because > >> you are recommended to use a newer version) you can simply download the > >> installation script and run it using "sh path/to/downloaded/script.sh". > >> This will install LilyPond locally in your user account. There are no > >> further dependencies or the need of administrator rights. > >> The only thing that *may* be needed is to add the ~/bin directory to > >> your $PATH. > > Most people will have ~/bin in their $PATH, as you know. > > But there *are* distributions that don't have ~/bin at all by default. > Don't recall where I encountered that, but it happens.
Yes, Debian didn't _create_ it, and doesn't AFAIK. If it already exists, the default bash startup file will add it to the beginning of $PATH (whereas I prefer the end). Perhaps I'm wrong in my assumption that most linux users have written something, if only a script, that they want to execute once in a while without wanting to type path/to/something or sh something and they will therefore have created and populated ~/bin. > > For those that > > don't (and who are unlikely to have edited their PATH before, I think > > it might be sensible to show an example of what it will look like, > > emphasising that : is a separator, not a terminator or delimiter. I've > > known people add a security vulnerability to their system by getting > > this wrong. (It puts any directory into your $PATH while you're in it.) > > Just out of curiosity: could you give a more concrete hint (without > exposing anybody to copy-and-paste-risk)? OK. This one is quite pernicious, but depends on having the : at the beginning of $PATH, which might happen if someone thought the syntax was meant to be, say, PATH=:patha:pathb:and-so-on: $ echo $PATH :/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin: $ ls -l total 12 -rwxr--r-- 1 luser luser 25 Mar 3 23:29 cp -rw-r--r-- 1 luser luser 17 Mar 3 23:29 important-file1 -rw-r--r-- 1 luser luser 17 Mar 3 23:29 important-file2 $ cat important-file1 some information $ cat important-file2 more information $ cat cp rm -f cp $* 2> /dev/null $ which cp [the luser won't type this command of course] ./cp [I'm just showing you the trigger] $ cp important-file1 important-file2 ../backup-directory/ $ ls -l total 0 $ which cp /bin/cp [showing normality is restored] $ cp deletes whatever arguments are passed to it, and also itself. 2> /dev/null means you don't see the error message causd by trying to delete a directory. Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable, then waits for someone to cd /tmp and copy some files. Cheers, David. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
