From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Woodcroft Subject: Re: [PATCH] tar bombs and muscle Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:48:50 +1000 Message-ID: <57244742.5080201@gmail.com> References: <569AEE9B.6070709@uq.edu.au> <20160116222954.6ae74288@openmailbox.org> <571C0D71.5000209@uq.edu.au> <20160430021353.GC13826@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47660) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awNmS-0006vN-3m for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 01:49:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awNmG-0004OH-Kb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 01:49:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]:33531) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awNmF-0004K9-Ad for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 01:49:16 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id zm5so59832817pac.0 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:49:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160430021353.GC13826@jasmine> 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: Leo Famulari , Ben Woodcroft Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" , Mathieu Lirzin On 30/04/16 12:13, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:04:01AM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote: >> * gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm (muscle): New variable. >> + (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz")) > Once fetched, the source code is a directory rather than a tarball, so > I think it's best to omit the last component of the string. > >> + (replace 'install >> + (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys) >> + (let* ((out (assoc-ref outputs "out")) >> + (bin (string-append out "/bin"))) >> + (install-file "muscle" bin))))))) > It only creates the one executable? > >> + (license license:public-domain))) > Wow, they really don't make it easy to find this information. Can you > add a comment saying that it's in 'usage.cpp'? Unless I missed something > obvious... > > Otherwise, looks good to me! Pushed with those changes. Thanks.