From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53156)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hMtZH-0006H2-Hc
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 08:15:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hMtZG-0000r7-Ju
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 08:15:03 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36953)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1hMtZG-0000qx-GQ
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 08:15:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hMtZG-0007oE-3S
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2019 08:15:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#35545] [PATCH 06/17] gnu: javacc: Install binaries.
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.35545.B35545.155697205929943@debbugs.gnu.org>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 14:14:05 +0200
From: Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>
Message-ID: <20190504141405.3f1ad2b0@sybil.lepiller.eu>
In-Reply-To: <87y33mfndg.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <20190503145820.606f37db@sybil.lepiller.eu>
	<20190503130134.24788-1-julien@lepiller.eu>
	<20190503130134.24788-6-julien@lepiller.eu>
	<87y33mfndg.fsf@elephly.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: 35545@debbugs.gnu.org

Le Sat, 04 May 2019 13:52:11 +0200,
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> a =C3=A9crit :

> Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> writes:
>=20
> > * gnu/packages/java.scm (javacc)[arguments]: Add install-bin
> > phase. =20
> [=E2=80=A6]
> > +         (add-after 'install 'install-bin
> > +           (lambda* (#:key outputs inputs #:allow-other-keys)
> > +             (let* ((out (assoc-ref outputs "out"))
> > +                    (dir (string-append out "/share/java"))
> > +                    (bin (string-append out "/bin")))
> > +               (mkdir-p bin)
> > +               (with-output-to-file (string-append bin "/javacc")
> > +                 (lambda _
> > +                   (display
> > +                     (string-append "#!/bin/sh\n"
> > +                                    (assoc-ref inputs "jdk")
> > "/bin/java"
> > +                                    " -cp " dir "/javacc.jar" "
> > `basename $0`" " $*")))) =20
>=20
> I think it=E2=80=99s better not to use basename here.  We already know the
> store location.

basename gets the filename, not directory name of the command that was
invoked.

>=20
> > +               (chmod (string-append bin "/javacc") #o755)
> > +               (symlink (string-append bin "/javacc")
> > +                        (string-append bin "/jjdoc"))
> > +               (symlink (string-append bin "/javacc")
> > +                        (string-append bin "/jjtree")))))))) =20
>=20
> Why symlink javacc with different names?

the name of the binary is passed as a first argument to javacc.jar, so
their behavior is different.

>=20
> Since you=E2=80=99re reusing the javacc file name so often it makes sense=
 to
> let-bind it.
>=20
> Please end the build phase on #T.
>=20
> --
> Ricardo
>=20