Re: The case for moving raw binaries

[zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 18:37, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:

> "raw binaries" (henceforth rawbins) are the unwrapped binaries that
> Guix leaves behind in $PACKAGE/bin with the .$WRAPPER-real name.  This
> practise causes several issues.  For one, those rawbins are visible in
> 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.

Could you provide more details or pointers about «several issues»?

For instance, I do not consider that these “rawbins” visible from shell
is an issue.  Why do you consider it is one?

And I do not understand what you mean by « makes a generic wrap after
wrap pattern».  Could you explain?


> 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
> would a new directory in the root of $PACKAGE.  Other than that, adding
> a rawbin output would also be possible, but I am not certain whether
> that'd be the right tradeoff.

Since I do not understand well the problems, contrary, I find “easier”
to have these “rawbins“ in the output store item.  But maybe, I am miss
a key point.


Cheers,
simon