<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 10.09.2014 um 21:31 schrieb Jon
      Watte:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgyHGPy+wKwu-1WEj8pQ+UM8yaschWgZG02DG1UeFU-dWLSSA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.7272720336914px">I also
            fail to see how having a token is any better than declaring
            relative<br>
          </span><span
            style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.7272720336914px">paths
            to be searched from $PWD. Can you shed more light on this
            suggestion?</span></blockquote>
        <div><span
            style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.7272720336914px"><br>
          </span></div>
        <div><span
            style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.7272720336914px">$PWD
            is something that a user or administrator may change for
            many different reasons, not to mention it's different
            per-user. Relying on this for dbus invocation may lead to
            all kinds of hard-to-debug surprises and perhaps open up
            attack vectors.</span></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    agreed<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgyHGPy+wKwu-1WEj8pQ+UM8yaschWgZG02DG1UeFU-dWLSSA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div><span
            style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.7272720336914px">Tying
            yet-another-thing into that same environment value means
            that you tie more opportunities for failure into a thing
            users typically fiddle with.</span></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    agreed<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgyHGPy+wKwu-1WEj8pQ+UM8yaschWgZG02DG1UeFU-dWLSSA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div><span
            style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.7272720336914px">If
            the goal is to support alternative or non-standard or
            isolated installs of dbus, then having one place that
            defines what "search start" means FOR THAT INSTALL would be
            the most robust and secure solution,.</span></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    agreed<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAJgyHGPy+wKwu-1WEj8pQ+UM8yaschWgZG02DG1UeFU-dWLSSA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div><span
            style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.7272720336914px">On
            Windows, that might be a registry value that is specific to
            dbus.</span></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    Using a registry key prevents isolated dbus installations and is a
    no go.<br>
    <br>
    For that reason dbus on windows uses from start about 10 years ago
    the location of the dbus-daemon executable as search start for
    finding configuration files and other, which is the requested
    behavior for service files too. <br>
    <br>
    Regards<br>
     Ralf<br>
  </body>
</html>