RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Thijs Schreijer <thijs@...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Starks
> Sent: woensdag 21 mei 2014 18:36
> To: Lua mailing list
> Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

The whole thing has gone pretty much full circle by now. Besides some slight differences and other names, the structure ends up pretty much the same as the MinGW install target. [1]

I can't read PuC Rio minds, but if I had to decide, the user specific paths would not make it. 

Thijs

[1] Phillips remark on dlls in the system PATH, though not directly related, is important enough to warrant a change there. I'd say even 'loadall.dll' must move.