bug#47458: Terrible UX upgrading Emacs in Guix

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi Leo!

Leo Prikler <leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at> writes:

> Hi Maxim!
>
> Am Dienstag, den 06.04.2021, 08:09 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
>> Hi Leo!
>>
>> Leo Prikler <leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > Shouldn't we wrap all the binaries to be on the safe
>> > > side?  Things
>> > > such
>> > > as emacsclient probably ought to have EMACSLOADPATH set
>> > > correctly,
>> > > no?
>> > The remaining binaries are
>> > - emacsclient, which inherits its EMACSLOADPATH from the server it
>> > connects to
>> > - ctags, ebrowse and etags, which are helper binaries, that don't
>> > seem
>> > to rely on EMACSLOADPATH at all.  (Or is there an indicator, that
>> > they
>> > do?)
>> > - .-real binaries, that should only be wrapped once.
>> > We could relax the regex to include the upper two, but I don't
>> > think
>> > it's necessary to do so.
>>
>> OK, thanks for the explanation, it makes sense.
>>
> Should I also document that (as a comment in the code) or is it
> somewhat intuitive, that only Emacs is interested in these variables
> (just EMACSLOADPATH currently, maybe also PATH later)?

It wouldn't hurt!  It was not obvious to me that emacsclient didn't need
it (I have no knowledge of emacsclient's internals).

>> > I'd like to avoid pushing this to master just yet, because we also
>> > have
>> > changes in the Emacs build system to discuss and I don't want to
>> > cause
>> > an "Emacs world" rebuild twice in a row.  That said, I'm including
>> > this
>> > patch in wip-emacs with the plan to push to master or staging once
>> > everything there is resolved.
>>
>> Sure!  Which changes do you have in mind?  Are they already on the
>> tracker for review?
>>
>
> I've sent some of the changes for emacs-build-system to 45316.  The
> rest only lives on wip-emacs as of yet.  The first 5 patches on that
> branch are the ones that include the big changes (well, four of them
> anyway), one of which is not yet up to review as it results from the
> combined fixes to 45316 and 47458, the rest are mostly small "fixup"
> commits.

OK.  I'll have a look.

Maxim