From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] do not augment environment Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:59:34 -0400 Message-ID: <5069CBF6.9030108@netris.org> References: <505CF9FC.9060007@gmail.com> <5069022C.9040600@netris.org> <5069AB0F.4010805@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1349110810 19871 80.91.229.3 (1 Oct 2012 17:00:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Development To: Bruce Korb Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 01 19:00:16 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TIjLi-0007Ic-7f for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:00:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59606 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TIjLc-0000wx-OT for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:00:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33323) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TIjLV-0000gk-Q9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:59:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TIjLQ-0004GB-RP for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:59:53 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:56341) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TIjLL-0004C1-Dm; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:59:43 -0400 Original-Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=[192.168.1.176]) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TIjLD-0004Gq-Tg; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:59:36 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.7) Gecko/20120922 Icedove/10.0.7 In-Reply-To: <5069AB0F.4010805@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:14923 Archived-At: On 10/01/2012 10:39 AM, Bruce Korb wrote: > On 09/30/12 19:38, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> In the current code, SCM_LIB_DIR and SCM_EXTENSIONS_DIR are only >> added to the library search path when GUILE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS_PATH >> is not set. Your patch mishandles this, because it _always_ acts >> as if SCM_LIB_DIR and SCM_EXTENSIONS_DIR have been added to the search path. > > Always inserting "GUILE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS_PATH=" into the environment > is a better fix than erasing LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but I hadn't read and > digested the source. Thanks for the pointer. Are you deploying this fix in widely-used software, or just within your private environment? If the latter, that's fine, and you can disregard the rest of this message. If the former, then we need to be careful. By setting GUILE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS_PATH="", you will break Guile programs that need to load extensions, not just within your own program, but within any subprocesses that might be unrelated to your project. Also, our internal hack of setting GUILE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS="" during the Guile build is not documented as far as I know, and might change in the future. It's actually a bad hack, for the same reasons given above. For example, if 'gcc' started using Guile, then setting GUILE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS="" within the Guile build could break gcc. I admit that we created this mess by deploying a bad hack, but let's try to avoid getting ourselves into an even bigger mess by deploying more bad hacks that lock us into preserving our current hacks. Before I spend any more time thinking about this, can you please answer my question above? Thanks, Mark