From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id kJh9CUyDGGAUMgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 22:40:12 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id KAr7BEyDGGARMAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 22:40:12 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94CC6940356 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 22:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:49248 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6hre-0001I6-H6 for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:40:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55966) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6hrW-0001G1-7z for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:40:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6hrW-0003wE-0S for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:40:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6hrV-0005So-Sw for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:40:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#45954] Telegram-CLI (v7) Resent-From: Leo Prikler Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 22:40:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 45954 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Raghav Gururajan , 45954@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 45954-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B45954.161221917120957 (code B ref 45954); Mon, 01 Feb 2021 22:40:01 +0000 Received: (at 45954) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Feb 2021 22:39:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33497 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6hr1-0005Rx-3O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:39:31 -0500 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:61148) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6hqv-0005Rk-1c for 45954@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:39:29 -0500 Received: from nijino.local (217-149-173-242.nat.highway.telekom.at [217.149.173.242]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DV2td1cPNz1LLyL; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 23:39:20 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4DV2td1cPNz1LLyL DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1612219161; bh=OQQ71mP9lMRHI33Rv3lsM1LzYM5mlsDdweqKRIp2N2M=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=X67x/SQUATeisc52pYpV/tAjurZzMhqX2PNSaQu0SmuZ4glyakHnXepL9sNqPoKoo aVR+lLVhqpka5a+6Qfwn0RSUX5OD0lkHn6p0ZlcSUQrKyKeYby7Taf7UoO/wAdmt9h vMcTAVoCvkXWSfEWIk28Rta0xu9ekrhsraVfF3ds= Message-ID: <515542411e38fa921ef936fe116bd3e0fb2a44d1.camel@student.tugraz.at> From: Leo Prikler Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 23:39:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.26 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b="X67x/SQU"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=student.tugraz.at (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 94CC6940356 X-Spam-Score: -1.26 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: dklJXfN+rHPH Am Montag, den 01.02.2021, 17:08 -0500 schrieb Raghav Gururajan: > +(define-public telegram-cli > + (let ((commit "6547c0b21b977b327b3c5e8142963f4bc246187a") > + (revision "324")) > + (package > + (name "telegram-cli") > + (version > + (git-version "1.3.1" revision commit)) I didn't notice this before, but is there a reason to package this version over 1.3.1? > (getenv "TEMP") Please stop trying to use this as a snippet to mean "the root of the source and build directory". It is extremely obscure and people are already using "../source" just fine. (Just do an rgrep if you aren't convinced.) > > You might want to write that in terms of copy-build-system. > > Hmm. I tried but couldn't come up with a way to do it like that. :( You can still try harder for v8 ;) > The script may only be used on foreign-distro for now. For guix > system, > we need to define a service for it. > > Also, running telegram-cli doesn't require daemon, but vice-versa. > The > daemon is intended to be a complimentary feature to run telegram-cli > on > headless server. In that case, does the daemon script have any value of its own? Given that the latest release of telegram-cli is about six years old, I doubt there is – foreign distros should already have it in their repos and Guix as a package manager makes no claim to manage system stuff like services on foreign distros. > The file is a run-time script. That means literally nothing. The wrap phase exists for a reason, some programs and script are even wrapped twice. > Using (getenv "PATH") will instead use the value of PATH inside the > build environment. So you'll inadvertently have some native-inputs in it, is what you're trying to say? Of course, there are better ways of wrapping PATH, but in this case wouldn't it be wise to limit it to just the expected paths? Again, assuming that there is even merit in shipping this file, which is yet to be proven. Regards, Leo