From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kei Kebreau Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add nethack. Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:05:32 -0400 Message-ID: <20160608140532.5500b9bc@openmailbox.org> References: <20160531175630.0bfd76ff@openmailbox.org> <87y46kwt82.fsf@gnu.org> <20160606162541.5254ed6c@openmailbox.org> <20160607172028.GA19231@jasmine> <87fusnj0p4.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/33hV6ERAgyvPgMJlGh=o8jn"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34113) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bAhre-0004gv-Sq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:06:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bAhrZ-0004Df-MH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:06:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87fusnj0p4.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?B?Q291cnTDqHM=?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --Sig_/33hV6ERAgyvPgMJlGh=o8jn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:59:35 +0200 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: >=20 > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:25:41PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote: =20 > >> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: =20 > >> > > + (add-after 'move-state-files 'wrap-program =20 > >> >=20 > >> > Do we really need this wrapper? Can=E2=80=99t we instead take it as= a > >> > patch from Debian or something? I=E2=80=99m not a fan of inline Bash > >> > code, and not very confident of scripts that do =E2=80=98rm -rf=E2= =80=99. :-) > >> > =20 > >> 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"... =20 > > > > 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. =20 >=20 > Yeah, I would also prefer something along these lines. >=20 > What do you think, Kei? Does that sound doable? >=20 > Thanks, > Ludo=E2=80=99. I'm not so sure. Is there a way that I can explicitly access the home directory of the user that invokes guix? That is, something clearer than "~/.nethack"? --=20 Kei (GPG Key: 4096R/E6A5EE3C19467A0D) --Sig_/33hV6ERAgyvPgMJlGh=o8jn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXWF5tAAoJEOal7jwZRnoNjcoP+wZEIIinkXMeaX/dR7bgcjVL uEnw4YoYPWaPX+hBUGqkhfvabOlcgDWbcgmi/4myOlXhz4iQqMnieuokpuli+G27 /sXO09QIAoai1SPB9PC8wF+bIwKAv5N7ggpDDCtwvOhohebTbjvAjaxCVto1zwNT S8HO1W1tRwiUbc7GV3F5PdNQvX9cmDXrYBuvte57U9dNaj+wNRfTXSlrnIGVrZGL nMhjiK6y4CZT9rC28lzlYEnSrdUHdnX8h/vImvhD/LaFehOvxXRNUz8+AFLf91rI u9qCPyORfM7Dv5jofBi+UT8TvLyJ5uzUTeu6AMIA2wikj5FVFMFujcNh+BfCOdSW RZ/tB41o27lAx1Ia7abib/JCg3cmMupZkkXNRYQ27LRKzFcx29qCpqrnU3Uk2htJ NfeEvPxpTVfK04epPkXdjspYuAnJODuUZCoE/jwoZ8dlRpVy03vG1MWZ9Qx45mLz dDs+9jucm9QSygVxT4qPyHdqMAICU56di8Y0e5+FSfueIRI3maQvV7yr/om9ASEQ Ovn+0TsN5se833mDD29WwFD7IH60vLFjuqMUJLIcdWpyXAlk0BRxJovSUErZ0GZ9 27tkeB2R0Ng9nBuB+1ghVLyeZvABzFYG3+mRcUcouX7ih3JjSTJnIAlopaTq5R6a XjeZQ4fbZY07Dw7c6hSM =B1gr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/33hV6ERAgyvPgMJlGh=o8jn--