From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52144) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dziXx-0007gA-O0 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:13:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dziXu-0001sX-US for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:13:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:39015) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dziXu-0001s8-S3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:13:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dziXu-0004e3-NX for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:13:02 -0400 Subject: bug#28660: [PATCH] gnu: python-numpy: Give sh store location instead of setting $SHELL. Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 14:12:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20171004.141227.1558332285266180058.post@thomasdanckaert.be> From: Thomas Danckaert In-Reply-To: <20171004084944.16af59c8@cbaines.net> References: <20171004073048.1187465b@cbaines.net> <20171004.090436.431865073991228123.post@thomasdanckaert.be> <20171004084944.16af59c8@cbaines.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: mail@cbaines.net, 28660-done@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: 28660@debbugs.gnu.org From: Christopher Baines Subject: Re: [bug#28660] [PATCH] gnu: python-numpy: Give sh store location instead of setting $SHELL. Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 08:49:44 +0100 > Sorry Thomas, ignore what I originally said. I thought from reading > the > patch that this was patching numpy to use /bin/sh . Now after > building > it and looking at the resulting files, I can see that it makes the > default use bash from the store. Which was exactly what I was > suggesting, but you were already doing that. > > With this new, hopefully more correct interpretation, this patch > looks > fine to me :) Yes, that's the purpose exactly :) I've slightly reworded the commit message & comment to hopefully make it less confusing, and pushed. Thanks for taking a look! Thomas