Re: umask in modules

[Istvan M. <mi...@im...>]

"R.K. Owen Ph.D." <rk...@Ow...> writes:

> If you really want to set a umask, it is already possible
> within modules.   In this case you want to communicate directly with
> the shell, that can be done by outputting to stdout.  Remember, that
> "module" is just an alias that eval's the output of the modulecmd program.
> 
> create a module with
> ...
> if [ module-info mode load ] {
>         puts stdout  "umask 027;"
> }
> 
> if [ module-info mode remove ] {
>         puts stdout  "umask 022;"
> }

Good idea. But since this relies on shell syntax you would have to
check "module-info shell" in case the module is invoked from Perl or
Emacs.

But I agree, putting umask in Modules is probably not worth it. I
personally wouldn't use it, it was the original poster asking...

> ...
> 
> In this case you use "exec xset" to communicate directly with your
> X11 window server.

The problem with xset fp+ is that it doesn't check for duplicate
entries. I guess you could handle this in TCL by trying to parse the
output of "xset q" but this feels a bit messy to me.  Modules already
does X resources so it already links against the X libraries.

> As you can see from both of these examples, very little needs to be
> added to modules, and most of what is needed can be done already
> by understanding to whom you need to send a command and the underpinnings
> of modules in Tcl and shell evals.

Agreed.

-- 
	Istvan