Re: The case for moving raw binaries

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Am Donnerstag, dem 28.04.2022 um 18:55 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op do 28-04-2022 om 18:37 [+0200]:
> > the shell by typing a dot and using tab completion.  What's more,
> > in some build systems there might be two (or even more) off them. 
> > This makes a generic wrap after wrap pattern almost impossible to
> > achieve.
> > 
> > So, what's the fix?  I propose moving rawbins to a different
> > location.  libexec would spring to mind as a place in which we
> > could hide them, so
> 
> How does this help with double wrapping?  Whether the wrappers /
> originals are put in /bin or $RAWBIN_DIR, it's still wrapped twice.
Because $RAWBIN_DIR can be ignored when wrapping.  This means that
stuff that's already in it won't be added again.

> Also, FWIW, double-wrapping works nicely for 'wrap-program' -- it
> just appende or prepended some extra X=Y lines.  With some work and
> test cases, 'wrap-script' could be extended to support such a thing
> as well.
Constructing the wrapper is not so much the problem, it's not wrapping
the already wrapped binaries.  Plus the .-real binaries showing up in
$PATH remains an issue if they don't move :)