From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55053) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jIkHv-0003q5-A6 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 22:36:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jIkHu-0003iK-57 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 22:36:31 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48651) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jIkHu-0003i7-1C for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 22:36:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jIkHt-0004j6-Tl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 22:36:29 -0400 Subject: [bug#39807] [PATCH] guix: pack: Only wrap executable files. Resent-Message-ID: From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20200227043604.13102-1-bavier@posteo.net> <87d09pohrj.fsf@gnu.org> <8d8a2e1209d82e136d36222683967956@posteo.net> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:39:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8d8a2e1209d82e136d36222683967956@posteo.net> (Eric Bavier's message of "Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:27:14 -0500") Message-ID: <87a73z1azh.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Eric Bavier Cc: 39807@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Eric, Eric Bavier skribis: > On 06.03.2020 05:16, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: [...] >>> I feel like a test should be added to >>> tests/guix-pack-relocatable.sh, but >>> I'm not sure how to do that while keeping the test lightweight. >>> Suggestions >>> welcome. >> >> Not sure how to do that. Since =E2=80=98guix pack=E2=80=99 accepts mani= fests, you >> could >> have a manifest containing a =E2=80=98computed-file=E2=80=99 with a file= that shouldn=E2=80=99t >> be wrapped, and then you could ensure that=E2=80=99s indeed the case. O= r you >> could try with =E2=80=98git-minimal=E2=80=99 or some other package that = exhibits the >> problem? > > I almost have a working test using 'git-minimal', but I'm not happy > with the quantity of code needed to setup, and I'm worried now that > that test would be relying on an implementation detail that could > change in the future without us noticing (e.g. a git subcommand that's > currently a shell script is subsumed into git so the test no longer > checks what we want). > > So I think I'll try going the manifest/computed-file route instead. OK. >>> - (for-each build-wrapper >>> - (append (find-files (string-append input "/bin")) >>> - (find-files (string-append input >>> "/sbin")) >>> - (find-files (string-append input >>> "/libexec"))))))) >>> + (receive (executables others) >> >> I=E2=80=99d prefer srfi-11 =E2=80=98let-values=E2=80=99. :-) > > I tried let-values to begin with, but I found 'receive' to be much > easier on the eyes. For the case of binding values from a single > expression, does let-values offer benefits? And there are no other > uses of let-values in this module, so precedent/consistency doesn't > seem to have weight. OK, no big deal. There are probably more uses of =E2=80=98let-values=E2=80=99 than =E2=80=98= receive=E2=80=99 overall. That said, I think we can start switching to srfi-71, which is nicer than both of these. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.