On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:21:28 +0100 Taco Hoekwater <t...@elvenkind.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 10:18 AM, Hans Hagen wrote: > > On 11/21/2012 8:28 PM, Peter Münster wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 21 2012, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> > >>> But Peter's idea is also not that bad. The drawback is that the > >>> distribution cannot be moved to a different directory then, but one > >>> could also have combination of both approaches somehow. > >> > >> Is it worth the trouble to keep setuptex? > >> Just saying "Please add ... to your PATH" should be enough IMO. > > > > I often use it. > > Me too, I have quite a bunch of scripts that are distributed to > online servers that do not all have the same architecture. Sourcing setuptex (. pathtocontext/setuptex) will fail to find and thus modify the path under pure Borne shells and their equivalents. It will work just fine under bash, ksh (but sourcing the script will fail totally under csh and tcsh). Executing the script (pathtocontext/setuptex) should run correctly under all shells but will in all cases fail to set the path. My suggestion is simply to modify the message printed at the end: In the case of an execution rather than a sourcing, or in the case of sourcing under a Borne shell, the script could instruct the user to manually modify the path. In the other case, it could set the path. Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
