From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51351) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cwUWd-0003zN-9A for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:06:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cwUWY-0000p8-J7 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:06:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:38442) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cwUWY-0000p2-GR for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:06:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cwUWY-00089Y-Ay for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:06:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26391: [PATCH 0/1] Patching getcap and which in torsocks Resent-Message-ID: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50612) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cwUW8-0003ax-Tn for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:05:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cwUW5-0000Ya-Kf for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:05:36 -0400 Received: from mail.centurylink.net ([205.219.233.9]:28104 helo=smtp.centurylink.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cwUW5-0000Xs-F7 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:05:33 -0400 From: Eric Bavier Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:05:10 -0500 Message-Id: <20170407140511.25564-1-bavier@member.fsf.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: 26391@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Eric Bavier This patches references to the 'getcap' and 'which' programs in 'torsocks' so that users that don't have either of those packages installed in their profiles do not see confusing output about them missing. Usually torsocks will still function in that case, but it's probably better to have them available. I've so far done this sort of thing for several packages with shell scripts, and each time I'm convinced that this method is better than declaring the inputs in propagated-inputs. But I think I'd feel more sure of myself if we had a short "Packaging shell scripts" section in the manual that outlined best-practices-of-the-moment. Would that be useful? Eric Bavier (1): gnu: torsocks: Patch references to 'getcap' and 'which'. gnu/packages/tor.scm | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) -- 2.12.2