A short time ago, at a computer terminal far, far away, Zefram wrote:
>>And I guess I'm wondering, if these are only for backwards compatibility,
>>(a) do I need them, if I never used paths for modules anywhere,
>
>No. In fact, they've been removed in newer versions.
>
>>Or, at the very least, have the module files in that toplevel dir all
>>hardlinked together, since they all appear to be the same file anyway.
>>Or am I missing something?
>
>Yes, either of these will work, on ELF systems. Some dynamic loading
>systems that zsh supports have requirements that mean that all module
>files have to be different (effectively, the module needs to know its
>own name).
Thanks, that definitely helps.
A short time ago, at a computer terminal far, far away, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>What do you mean by "I never used paths for modules anywhere" ?
>
>If you mean "I used modules, but never by their paths" then if you don't
>have the alias modules you'll have to change your startup files or any
>other places where you used modules, to use the zsh/modulename form.
>
>If you mean "I never used the zmodload command" then you don't need them.
Well, in my case, I had MODULE_PATH already being set in my startup files,
and so I just added the 'zsh' subdir to the path. Of course, reading your
subsequent mail, this is apparently the wrong thing to do.
>It's an attempt to be forward-looking, so that other modules that are
>not part of the zsh "package" can be distrubuted under separate module
>hierarchies, but all live under /usr/<whatever>/zsh/<version>/.
Ah, okay, well I can certainly see having separate directories for
distributed modules vs local modules. I guess the "zsh" subdir name just
seems non-intuitive; something like "main" or "dist" or "builtin" or
"standard" or something to indicate that these are modules that _come with_
zsh would be more descriptive. Calling it "zsh" when they're _all_ modules
for zsh (even the ones installed locally) is somewhat confusing. :)
Also, I'm not quite clear on why the MODULE_PATH isn't to be used like a
shell PATH, listing all the directories wherein modules may be found.
Although, if it's because dependencies are resolved by load-name, rather
than an internal name, then I can see how that would cause problems, as you
describe in your other email.
--
Will Day <PGP mail preferred> OIT / O&E / Technical Support
willday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Georgia Tech, Atlanta 30332-0715
-> Opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect OIT policy <-
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly, Nov. 11, 1755
Attachment:
pgphiWNh5z1Fy.pgp
Description: PGP signature