From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Loyall, David" Subject: Re: We're doing it wrong. [WAS]: Zip utility on Windows for ODT exporter Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:58:45 +0000 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44131) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQIxf-0008Re-UE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:58:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQIxc-0000Rv-Mn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:58:51 -0400 Received: from mx01.ne.gov ([164.119.247.101]:14244) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQIxc-0000RT-Hj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:58:48 -0400 Content-Language: en-US List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" > From: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Behalf Of Achim Gratz > Loyall, David writes: > > And that's why civilized programs don't depend on external executables > > from $PATH. >=20 > Then practically all programs are uncivilized, especially when considerin= g that > dynamic libraries are just another form of external executables. Yes. But would you grant me that this is done in a more orderly fashion? > > Now, I'd imagine that some people have argued in the past that org > > shouldn't depend on external executables. Clearly those arguments > > have failed. >=20 > I'm sure that if you could point to an Emacs package that allows to work = with > archives without depending on external executables it would be used > instead, but I'm not aware of any such package: ox-odt uses arc-mode for > unzipping (which in turn uses call-proc for actually doing it) and then c= all-proc > itself to do the zipping. I realized shortly after my post that calling external executables is the n= orm, not the exception. Also, I must apologize, my general tone in that message was terrible. I'm = experimenting with quitting smoking. Suggestion: never start. =20 > > But, let's take a fresh look. How about this rule of thumb: don't > > depend on external executables **from $PATH**. > > > > Can we agree on that? >=20 > No, because I can't really see the point, especially since Emacs doesn't = use > just $PATH for call-proc, but a user option exec-path (whose default valu= e is > a copy of $PATH, but even a cursory look on $PATH on a Windows system > should convince you that you really should change this). >=20 > > How about: don't depend on external executables from $PATH, but allow > > the user to override via config. >=20 > How about: if you want that level of control, customize exec-path (and > perhaps exec-suffixes)? >=20 > > This is important on the 'reproducible research' front. >=20 > Are we still talking about Windows? No. Well, kinda. > You'd need an audited system if you > want to take it that far, I'm not sure anybody has tried to do this on Wi= ndows > and is still outside the asylum. The only practical way seems to deliver= the > reproducible research as a VM (yes, that has other problems). Yeah, I've thought about that a little bit. I heard somebody say the other day that according to some survey, x percent= of people don't know the difference between a search engine and a browser.= Would they know the difference between an application and a VM that auto-= starts an application? ...If you just change the title bar of Virtualbox t= o say "Emacs" instead... I wrote ~2200 characters on this subject, just now, but then I stashed it a= way rather than present it here before asking: has this been proposed befor= e? What was the outcome? > Regards, > Achim. =20 Cheers, --Dave