First impressions when I saw this was that it had crashed, since it lists file names and line numbers.
Once I realized it was actually an information message, I think got paralysis for which file I needed to update.
It would be much better if we could just update the path for them. According to this post it appears if we drop a launch file into /etc/paths.d containing a "${HOME}/.launch/bin" value in it that will add to our path, at least on Mac/Linux. That works well, except for the rule we came up with that we want our path to go ahead of other items in the path.
So maybe we should not require that, but instead look to see if any of the commands we symlink are in the directories already, and if so output a warning message (but formatted in a manner that will not look like an error)? Maybe we can even as if they want us to move those files into a ~/.launch/sequestered directory containing a README file explaining what the files are any why they are there?
Alternately to /etc/paths.dperthesevariousposts maybe we could just create a ~/.profile or append to the end of an existing one with the following?:
export PATH="${HOME}/.launch/bin;${PATH}"
I am thinking this is a hard problem to get 100% right, but in the spirit of just doing the smallest scoped thing to get the software moving forward we should do something that basically works and then can feedback from beta users on how to improve it based on their concerns for how we do it?
First impressions when I saw this was that it had crashed, since it lists file names and line numbers.
Once I realized it was actually an information message, I think got paralysis for which file I needed to update.
It would be much better if we could just update the path for them. According to this post it appears if we drop a
launchfile into/etc/paths.dcontaining a"${HOME}/.launch/bin"value in it that will add to our path, at least on Mac/Linux. That works well, except for the rule we came up with that we want our path to go ahead of other items in the path.So maybe we should not require that, but instead look to see if any of the commands we symlink are in the directories already, and if so output a warning message (but formatted in a manner that will not look like an error)? Maybe we can even as if they want us to move those files into a
~/.launch/sequestereddirectory containing a README file explaining what the files are any why they are there?Alternately to
/etc/paths.dper these various posts maybe we could just create a~/.profileor append to the end of an existing one with the following?:I am thinking this is a hard problem to get 100% right, but in the spirit of just doing the smallest scoped thing to get the software moving forward we should do something that basically works and then can feedback from beta users on how to improve it based on their concerns for how we do it?