I think in the Linux version the configuration file dmd.conf should not go with the executable because this isn't the Unix way to do it (there seems to be no reliable way to get at the path of the executable) ...

... but be searched at

  /etc/dmd.conf

You can always have the original in the installation directory and put a symbolic link at /etc, for example:

  cd /etc
  ln -s /home/leitner/d/dmd/bin/dmd.conf

--
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3EBE0A90.F5EC470A@chello.at...
> I think in the Linux version the configuration file dmd.conf should not go with the executable because this isn't the Unix way to do it (there seems to be no reliable way to get at the path of the executable) ...

argv[0] doesn't do it?

Walter wrote:
> 
> "Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3EBE0A90.F5EC470A@chello.at...
> > I think in the Linux version the configuration file dmd.conf should not go with the executable because this isn't the Unix way to do it (there seems to be no reliable way to get at the path of the executable) ...
> 
> argv[0] doesn't do it?

I don't think so:

    leitner@linux:~/d/dmd/samples/d> hello
    hello world
    args.length = 1
    args[0] = 'hello'

This is even the case, when the program is called from a script and the directory is looked up from the PATH.

While you can usually rely on args[0] in the DOS/Windows world, I think you usually can't in the Unix world.

--
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3EBEA3FA.CAD63F57@chello.at...
> Walter wrote:
> > "Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3EBE0A90.F5EC470A@chello.at...
> > > I think in the Linux version the configuration file dmd.conf should
not go
> > > with the executable because this isn't the Unix way to do it (there
seems
> > > to be no reliable way to get at the path of the executable) ...
> > argv[0] doesn't do it?
> I don't think so:
>     leitner@linux:~/d/dmd/samples/d> hello
>     hello world
>     args.length = 1
>     args[0] = 'hello'
> This is even the case, when the program is called from a script
> and the directory is looked up from the PATH.
> While you can usually rely on args[0] in the DOS/Windows world,
> I think you usually can't in the Unix world.

<rant>
I occaisionally run into these frustrating lacks in linux - frustrating
because they'd be so easy to add to the kernel, and are so unreliable to try
and work around. One thing I wanted to avoid with linux is having a dmd
installation spew files all over the system. It looks like it's going to be
very hard avoiding this.
</rant>

There, I feel better now <g>.

Walter wrote:
> <rant>
> I occaisionally run into these frustrating lacks in linux - frustrating
> because they'd be so easy to add to the kernel, and are so unreliable to try
> and work around. One thing I wanted to avoid with linux is having a dmd
> installation spew files all over the system. It looks like it's going to be
> very hard avoiding this.
> </rant>
> 
> There, I feel better now <g>.
> 

Spewing files all over the system is the Unix way!

"Andy Friesen" <andy@ikagames.com> wrote in message news:b9mka7$8g6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > <rant>
> > I occaisionally run into these frustrating lacks in linux - frustrating
> > because they'd be so easy to add to the kernel, and are so unreliable to
try
> > and work around. One thing I wanted to avoid with linux is having a dmd installation spew files all over the system. It looks like it's going to
be
> > very hard avoiding this.
> > </rant>
> > There, I feel better now <g>.
> Spewing files all over the system is the Unix way!

It's the Windows way, too, but I had figured out a way to avoid it!

"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3EBE0A90.F5EC470A@chello.at...
> I think in the Linux version the configuration file dmd.conf should not go with the executable because this isn't the Unix way to do it (there seems to be no reliable way to get at the path of the executable) ...
>
> ... but be searched at
>
>   /etc/dmd.conf

Why /etc instead of, say, /usr/local/etc? (Pardon my ignorance of linux conventions.0

In article <b9mka7$8g6$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
>
>Walter wrote:
>> <rant>
>> I occaisionally run into these frustrating lacks in linux - frustrating
>> because they'd be so easy to add to the kernel, and are so unreliable to try
>> and work around. One thing I wanted to avoid with linux is having a dmd
>> installation spew files all over the system. It looks like it's going to be
>> very hard avoiding this.
>> </rant>
>> 
>> There, I feel better now <g>.
>> 
>
>Spewing files all over the system is the Unix way!

There are documets on where the different files of an application should be put in a Linux or Unix system. (Sorry, right now I can't give a pointer. Anybody?) You might also check the Vim editor sources (www.vim.org), Vim does a good job of "knowing where it is", among other things.

The volume where the compiler binaries reside might be remotely mounted as read-only, especially in a corporate setup. Also, it is easier for the sysadmin to have all system-wide configurations in the same place, i.e. /etc.

Individual users can then override these configurations, e.g. with a $HOME/.dmd file (or even directory, if the configuration is elaborate -- which probably is not needed fof dmd.)

One way to resolve the issue is to have the binary look for the config file in /etc and read it, then to update the parameters reading from the first config file found in

1. defined on the command line
2. pointed to by the environment variable $DMD_CONFIG, if it is defined
3. current directory (.)
4. home directory ($HOME)

If the user installing DMD is root then this is what sould be set up. On the other hand, if the installing user is non-root (the user himself), then the installation should copy a default .dmd file to his home directory. In this case the .dmd file could contain the path to dmd-home, since the user might have installed the package in any of various places. (It's not even uncommon to install in /tmp, for example for temporary needs or to just check something.)

In any case, you probably have to spew a man-file to the man directory, the libraries to /usr/lib, the binary to /usr/bin, and the config file to /etc, at the very least.

Sure, it is possible to have the whole DMD-tree in one place. This is OK for a personal install. But when root installs DMD, then every user should be able to use DMD, and then a single-hierarchy-install would confuse normal Unix and Linux people.

Some good ideas here. Thanks!

"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:b9mp6d$d59$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <b9mka7$8g6$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
> >
> >Walter wrote:
> >> <rant>
> >> I occaisionally run into these frustrating lacks in linux - frustrating
> >> because they'd be so easy to add to the kernel, and are so unreliable
to try
> >> and work around. One thing I wanted to avoid with linux is having a dmd installation spew files all over the system. It looks like it's going
to be
> >> very hard avoiding this.
> >> </rant>
> >>
> >> There, I feel better now <g>.
> >>
> >
> >Spewing files all over the system is the Unix way!
>
> There are documets on where the different files of an application should
be put
> in a Linux or Unix system. (Sorry, right now I can't give a pointer.
Anybody?)
> You might also check the Vim editor sources (www.vim.org), Vim does a good
job
> of "knowing where it is", among other things.
>
> The volume where the compiler binaries reside might be remotely mounted as read-only, especially in a corporate setup. Also, it is easier for the
sysadmin
> to have all system-wide configurations in the same place, i.e. /etc.
>
> Individual users can then override these configurations, e.g. with a
$HOME/.dmd
> file (or even directory, if the configuration is elaborate -- which
probably is
> not needed fof dmd.)
>
> One way to resolve the issue is to have the binary look for the config
file in
> /etc and read it, then to update the parameters reading from the first
config
> file found in
>
> 1. defined on the command line
> 2. pointed to by the environment variable $DMD_CONFIG, if it is defined
> 3. current directory (.)
> 4. home directory ($HOME)
>
> If the user installing DMD is root then this is what sould be set up. On
the
> other hand, if the installing user is non-root (the user himself), then
the
> installation should copy a default .dmd file to his home directory. In
this case
> the .dmd file could contain the path to dmd-home, since the user might
have
> installed the package in any of various places. (It's not even uncommon to install in /tmp, for example for temporary needs or to just check
something.)
>
> In any case, you probably have to spew a man-file to the man directory,
the
> libraries to /usr/lib, the binary to /usr/bin, and the config file to
/etc, at
> the very least.
>
> Sure, it is possible to have the whole DMD-tree in one place. This is OK
for a
> personal install. But when root installs DMD, then every user should be
able to
> use DMD, and then a single-hierarchy-install would confuse normal Unix and
Linux
> people.
>
>

Walter wrote:
> 
> "Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3EBE0A90.F5EC470A@chello.at...
> > I think in the Linux version the configuration file dmd.conf should not go with the executable because this isn't the Unix way to do it (there seems to be no reliable way to get at the path of the executable) ...
> >
> > ... but be searched at
> >
> >   /etc/dmd.conf
> 
> Why /etc instead of, say, /usr/local/etc? (Pardon my ignorance of linux conventions.0

Sorry, I can't answer the question. I'm still a 90% Windows developer.
I only notice that all applications that I installed (apache, exim, ...)
put their config files into /etc. It's the place where people look first.

--
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com