From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: inxi and inxi-full Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:22:55 +0530 Message-ID: <8736zzps94.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87h8p0wb6m.fsf@gmail.com> <87woxwkypg.fsf@gmail.com> <874ll09kn6.fsf@gmail.com> <87po353efj.fsf@gmail.com> <877epcesqb.fsf@gmail.com> <877epcq0mg.fsf@gmail.com> <87h8og1hgi.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <87fu40pcky.fsf@gmail.com> <87woxb22o3.fsf@gmail.com> <874lkfpxfu.fsf@gmail.com> <87tvsfzo4r.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f6rdv-0003ni-O0 for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:53:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f6rds-0007wl-MK for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:53:03 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]:33965) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f6rds-0007wH-GV for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:53:00 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d6so9004584iog.1 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:53:00 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <87tvsfzo4r.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: Chris Marusich Cc: help-guix --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain I've reported the issue upstream: https://github.com/smxi/inxi/issues/143 > * In the meantime, can't we just remove the offending line from the > source? This one: > > $ENV{'PATH'} = 'sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin'; As I initially suggested, this would work but we also need to change @paths to the Guix PATH values. > None of those paths are guaranteed to exist on GuixSD. If we remove > that line, then won't Perl's "system" function use whatever PATH is set > in the environment? If, in addition to removing that line, we wrap the > script with our wrap-program procedure, then we will have full control > over the PATH, and inxi should work. Why would we need to wrap the program? With the above fix, then we are all good, aren't we? Or is it to ensure that inxi does not see any other binary than the one in its wrapped environment? Then that would prevent inxi-minimal to be "extended" by installing more programs. > The system, and users on the system, may have a lot of these programs > installed already. For example, coreutils is certainly installed > somewhere. It is likely that inxi's closure overlaps with some of those > already-installed tools. Thanks to the functional software deployment > model that Guix follows, such overlap will automatically be > de-duplicated in the store. Take for instance headless systems: those won't need the full mesa stack to get information around their graphics capabilities. -- Pierre Neidhardt I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing... -- Thomas Jefferson --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAlrQRbcACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH9qMgf+OtzawLdr7bCvZX1XlvBDtTelCLgzygZhf6gtWAqMRmC49pWxHdctxKzY ukHwH49XHYEzvWi1jtyzL906TF6Dm0dBCUBpDE6JEpFxK0HkELXQxo+LsyfwKUF1 /bpK7bV/ZlpvHow9dmpduUawfhMlSUIeytPCURF/HT18DQ149iuxVVGeJfGRCCii pERwxK77WT4nVJQMjjJhyVPXk2X5QP76VchQQb318xfm8BqolOPuVhd8RhzLbz8v MgaYG6yl/L0yffdhWHSU8QN7bySadfXgfJc56mnpWRapDX5FMlfmPrh5AL+AbccW u4kBb7KFjbtaOmMSvN4PfG8S9L9RQQ== =yTYB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--