Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add asunder.

[Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1586 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 08:48:35AM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 06:03:45PM -0800, Chris Marusich wrote:
> 
>      Why is the wrapper not good here?  What would be a better solution?
>      
>      Here's why I think the wrapper produced by 'wrap-program' is a good
>      solution in this case:
>      
>      * The wrapper script allows us to package the software without modifying
>      its source.  As previously explained, Asunder is currently written under
>      the assumption that the tools it requires will be made available via the
>      PATH environment variable.
>      
>      * The wrapper script guarantees "complete deployment" of Asunder (i.e.,
>      no missing dependencies).  This is because the wrapper script contains
>      references to the components in the store that provide the command-line
>      tools that Asunder requires.
>      
>      * The wrapper script requires less work than patching Asunder.
>      
>      * The wrapper script is more robust than any patch we might attempt to
>        apply to Asunder's source code.
>      
>      This is a good argument for using a wrapper script in this case.  And I
>      believe these points apply to any component, like Asunder, which is
>      written under the assumption that tools will be made available via
>      PATH.  I also am willing to believe there are cases where the wrapper
>      script is undesirable, but I don't think this is one of them.

Okay, thanks for explanation. A wrapper does indeed seem appropriate in
this case.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]