[bug#43249]

[Brendan Tildesley <mail@brendan.scot>]

On 11/9/20 6:38 pm, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Brendan Tildesley <mail@brendan.scot> writes:
>
>> On 10/9/20 11:22 pm, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>>> Brendan Tildesley <mail@brendan.scot> writes:
>>>
>>>> I guess then we should patch wrap-program to add
>>>>
>>>> (when (wrapper? prog)
>>>>       (error (string-append prog " is a wrapper. Refusing to wrap.")))
>>> Should it really refuse to wrap or *add* its variables to the existing
>>> wrapper?
>>>
>> If there is a /bin/foo and /bin/.foo-real created by wrap-program, and
>> we are to run another wrap-program phase, under what circumstances
>> would it /not/ be a mistake to call (wrap-program "/bin/.foo-real")
>> instead of (wrap-program "/bin/foo")? And if the first one was called,
>> probably it was because find-files was used and the packager didn't
>> realise it was happening, and therefore it will be double-wrapped,
>> like gedit is.
> Oh, yes, that would be a mistake.
>
While we're at it, what do you think about changing the moved file from 
/bin/.foo-real into /bin/.real/foo, or maybe it would have to go up a 
directory and go into /.bin-real/foo. That would mean all these dot 
files wouldn't pollute PATH and appear in things like bemenu, or in 
window titles. Also pkill should be able to kill correctly based on the 
name. Would it break more things somehow?