From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." Subject: Re: 01/01: services: Add =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98=2Fusr=2Fbin=2Fenv?= =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99?= special file. Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 09:52:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87lfv0wnjw.fsf@nckx> References: <20190906102509.28951.2772@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190906102510.002BE21324@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87d0gdbtji.fsf@cbaines.net> <87mufhwhc6.fsf@nckx> <874l1p80zr.fsf@netris.org> <6384138c4454d584c43e0a6144ed18bf458c551a.camel@gmail.com> Reply-To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50919) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i6VWr-0006jn-0v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2019 03:53:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i6VWm-0001cf-Bl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2019 03:53:03 -0400 Received: from tobias.gr ([2001:470:7405::1]:47830) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i6VWj-0001Sg-L4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2019 03:52:59 -0400 In-reply-to: <6384138c4454d584c43e0a6144ed18bf458c551a.camel@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Jesse Gibbons Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jesse, Thanks! It was linked from another thread[0] Ludo' pasted to my=20 patch, though. I've read both. Jesse Gibbons =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > Here's a post with what I think is a good argument against=20 > adding > /usr/bin/env. I think the standard patch-shebang phase does a=20 > good job > at preventing the potential issue, but the argument still=20 > applies to So is the argument here that Guix packages would generate scripts=20 at run-time that refer to /usr/bin/env? Or just that it's=20 currently easy to catch packages that install #!/usr/bin/env=20 scripts? Or something else? Neither /bin/sh nor /usr/bin/env are available in the build=20 environment. Relying on the *likely* run-time non-existence of=20 /usr/bin/env in *user* environments to catch *packaging* bugs does=20 not sound acceptable to me. > scripts generated by make, as I learned while attempting to port > pysolfc. If you have the time, could you elaborate? Kind regards, T G-R [0]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D35910 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQT12iAyS4c9C3o4dnINsP+IT1VteQUCXXNhwwAKCRANsP+IT1Vt ef8GAQCZudoN+ppMBJOVIXMUgSO+1JlZ/B+Bu5jcC8moIP+4rwEAtcbWObRDiz7M 3zvQzCQEdRIOITMgGe3lNTX6RJmCVgA= =PleF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--