On Fri 04 Mar 2016 at 07:12:38 (-0600), David Wright wrote: > On Fri 04 Mar 2016 at 09:48:16 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote: > > David Wright <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > 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: > > > > This is a terrible PATH: it searches the local directory for executables > > (which one should never ever ever do as it is a security hole you can > > drive a truck through), and not once, but twice: before everything else > > and afterwards _again_. > > > > > Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable, > > > then waits for someone to cd /tmp and copy some files. > > > > I see that was the point you were trying to make, but it does not start > > like that. > > I do not know what you are referring to with "it" in "it does not start". > So I'm afraid I don't see the point that your posting is trying to make.
David, don't bother to reply to this post. I have reviewed this thread and anything I add will be off-list as these installation issues aren't really the thrust of this list. My take is: Bernard: you had some issues installing F and LP. Some of your compatibility issues were, I suspect, of your own making, but good, they're resolved. You'd now like to help others by improving the instructions and writing a piece of software to test the system and do something automatically about it. Fine, but I think you underestimate the complexity of that, but if that's your itch, scratch it by all means. Better (IMO) would be to make the instructions clearer, carefully distinguishing software that is part of people's linux distributions and that which is downloaded from non-linux-distribution sites. I understand if you don't want/have time to do that. Urs, Noeck: If I get any ideas on clarifying the instructions, I'll just send them to you and you can use/ditch them as you like. David K: I tried to give a context to my demonstration of what people can do accidently with their $PATH. I'm sorry if that did not come over. Just stick with my exhortation for giving an example of a good path alongside any instruction to modify it. Plenty of people have mucked up their paths in the past; people still ask how they can add this security hole and get answers---look: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27188856/adding-any-current-directory-to-the-search-path-in-linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_%28variable%29 (half-way down) MSDOS had an implicit . in front of any $PATH including the empty one. Blöchl Bernhard or BB (whichever hat you're wearing): Please quote (and read) more carefully. I'm sorry to have criticised you for both underquoting and overquoting. When I asked which posting, a timestamp of a reference to the lists.gnu.org would suffice, rather than 21K of HTML. You know I can read these references because I post them myself. So...off-list please. Cheers, David. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
