From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add nethack.
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:20:28 -0400
Message-ID: <20160607172028.GA19231@jasmine>
References: <20160531175630.0bfd76ff@openmailbox.org> <87y46kwt82.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20160606162541.5254ed6c@openmailbox.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44566)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bAKgT-0005kX-74
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:20:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bAKgQ-0001Jp-0M
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 13:20:57 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160606162541.5254ed6c@openmailbox.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:25:41PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
> > > +         (add-after 'move-state-files 'wrap-program
> > 
> > Do we really need this wrapper?  Can’t we instead take it as a patch
> > from Debian or something?  I’m not a fan of inline Bash code, and not
> > very confident of scripts that do ‘rm -rf’.  :-)
> > 
> Unfortunately, Debian doesn't have any related patches because it's
> state files are writable in the equivalent of our store directories. It
> seems like the bash script will have to stay for the sake of
> functionality unless someone comes up with something cleaner, though I
> prefer to avoid them. Long ago, I lost a GNU/Linux installation to
> "rm -rf"...

If Nethack lacks the ability to configure the location of the state
files, there is still a string (or several) in the source code that
looks like '/usr/share/nethack'. I think we should change this string to
something more appropriate instead of wrapping Nethack.