Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Thijs Schreijer <thijs@thijsschreijer.nl> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
>
> > Behalf Of Ulrich Schmidt
> > Sent: woensdag 21 mei 2014 16:53
> > To: lua-l@lists.lua.org
> > Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 21.05.2014 16:47, schrieb Thijs Schreijer:
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> > >> Behalf Of Thijs Schreijer
> > >> Sent: woensdag 21 mei 2014 16:16
> > >> To: Lua mailing list
> > >> Subject: RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org]
> > On
> > >>> Behalf Of Ulrich Schmidt
> > >>> Sent: woensdag 21 mei 2014 15:24
> > >>> To: lua-l@lists.lua.org
> > >>> Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Am 21.05.2014 14:13, schrieb Jay Carlson:
> > >>>> On May 21, 2014, at 7:32 AM, Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Am 21.05.2014 13:00 schröbte Thijs Schreijer:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The paths relative to the executable are nice for programs embedding
> > >> Lua,
> > >>> but I'm not sure they are suitable/enough for the standalone Lua
> > >>> interpreter. E.g. I often install lua52.exe and lua51.exe in the same
> > >>> directory (together with some other command line tools), and there may
> > be
> > >>> cases (external package managers, limited privileges) where you can't or
> > >>> don't want to write to the Lua installation directory ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Which reminds me: should a mingw target be basing these off %HOME%
> > >> and/or
> > >>> All Users? Maybe I've spent too much time around machines without write
> > >>> access to C:\Program Files and written a few too many "Install for all
> > >>> users, or just me" installers.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Simply dont install into c:\programs.
> > >>> 1. you dont know your makefile is used to compile 32/64bit-exe
> > >>> 2. some/many programs become installed into subfolders
> > >>>      of c:\ instead c:\programs to avoid the r/o-trouble.
> > >>>      I did so for my lua for instance.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ulrich.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Sometimes you don't have a choice. Also; binaries, sometimes remotely
> > >> fetched, are a security risk, and hence they should always go into
> > >> 'C:\Program Files' imo. It's plain sanity that the user must then provide
> > >> proper credentials for access to those locations. Don't try to circumvent
> > >> that.
> > >>
> > >> First there is the Lua installation (which would require some filetree
> > >> definition);
> > >>   - executables, headers, libs, docs
> > >>
> > >> Then there are 3 types of paths for the modules;
> > >>   - local to the executables  --> '!\\`
> > >>   - local to the current path --> `.\\`
> > >>   - OS specific paths for application/userdata --> %LOCALAPPDATA%,
> > >> %ProgramFiles% and %ProgramFiles(x86)% (And these would be different for
> > >> Cygwin type installations)
> > >>
> > >> The last one is most integrated with Windows, but also a can of worms due
> > to
> > >> all the different versions (and 32/64bit).
> > >>
> > >> So imo the only option is pretty close to the current module paths,
> > sticking
> > >> with current path or executable path, and optionally, with a big bonus
> > using
> > >> the %LOCALAPPDATA% path for a user specific location.
> >That's how its done now. But I have no problem in renaming `clibs` in the above examples into `lua`, so they mix. That would even allow the trees to be further simplified, to only a version number for example. Eg. !\\5.2\\?.dll and !\\5.2\\?.lua
>
> Thijs

I think this is more complicated than a simple script, if you want to support versions. You've got lua, luajit, 5.1/2/3 and in windows prior to 8, you've got the mess that is 32/64 bit support. To tackle that is to write a WIX installer. 

I did mention APPDATA, but I didn't mean to advocate it. Given that there is no uninstall script, the user can't / shouldn't be expected to go in there.

Perhaps USERPROFILE\lua\<VERSION>

But you probably don't want t actually put it there without their confirmation, first.