From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: 'python-build-system'
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:42:58 +0200
Message-ID: <871u9tlfzx.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87sj34zvn1.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87ehdwkntv.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87sj2b8llf.fsf@karetnikov.org> <877gjmr2to.fsf@karetnikov.org>
	<87ip36gyxz.fsf@gnu.org> <87obcym1vj.fsf@karetnikov.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52384)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1UWmUB-0006KW-9V
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:43:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1UWmU9-0004ok-0w
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:43:11 -0400
Received: from [2a01:e0b:1:123:ca0a:a9ff:fe03:271e] (port=59879
	helo=xanadu.aquilenet.fr) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1UWmU8-0004nA-R7
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:43:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87obcym1vj.fsf@karetnikov.org> (Nikita Karetnikov's message of
	"Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:50:24 +0400")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org> skribis:

>> Yes, definitely.  But that=E2=80=99s not a problem: these scripts are mo=
st
>> likely unused during the build process and afterward.
>
> So, should I package it (without replacing shells)?

No, no need for zsh here, AFAICS.

>>> * guix/build/utils.scm (wrap-program): Assume that 'prog' is an
>>>   absolute filename.  Adjust 'prog-real' and 'prog-tmp' accordingly.
>>>   Also, change 'prog-tmp' to honor command line arguments.
>
>> What was wrong with the previous approach?  I don=E2=80=99t like the =E2=
=80=9Cassume
>> it=E2=80=99s an absolute file name=E2=80=9D bit, because we don=E2=80=99=
t know whether the
>> assumption holds.
>
> Well, have a look at this snippet:
>
> +                  (for-each (cut wrap-program <> var)
> +                            files)))
>
> Each 'file' here will have an absolute filename.
>
> I failed to make it work with the previous version.

Can you clarify what didn=E2=80=99t work exactly?  It=E2=80=99s not clear t=
o me.

>> You need double quotes around $@.
>
> Why should I add them?

So that argument expansion does not incur further splitting, in case of
arguments containing white space (info "(bash) Special Parameters").

>> You also need to keep (package-native-search-paths python).  See commit
>> 35ac56b6, which fixed that for Perl & co.
>
> Could you elaborate?  Why is it needed?  Is it necessary to add
> 'python-search-paths'?

If you append (package-native-search-paths python) to the list of search
paths, then PYTHONPATH will automagically be defined appropriately (see
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2013-03/msg00158.html>.)

If you don=E2=80=99t, then PYTHONPATH will be undefined, unless you explici=
tly
define it in build/python-build-system.scm, which is not the recommended
option.

So just mimic the change made in the above commit for perl-build-system.

HTH,
Ludo=E2=80=99.