From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55478) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcxAI-0004hj-3l for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:15:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcxAE-0005rF-3u for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:15:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46436) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcxAD-0005r7-VF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:15:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fcxAD-0005l9-Oe for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:15:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#32102] [PATCH] utils: Fix wrap-program filename generation. Resent-Message-ID: From: Mark H Weaver References: <20180709013103.26091-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> <87k1q4j1zk.fsf@lassieur.org> <87r2kc8pm8.fsf@lassieur.org> <87h8l7ii2f.fsf@lassieur.org> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:13:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87h8l7ii2f.fsf@lassieur.org> ("=?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur"'s message of "Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:57:44 +0200") Message-ID: <87bmbfyn68.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur Cc: 32102@debbugs.gnu.org Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur writes: > Arun Isaac writes: > >>> should WRAP (from python-build-system.scm) wrap files that already >>> have a wrapper? I think it shouldn't. >> >> I agree with your analysis. How about I send a patch modifying WRAP >> (from python-build-system) to only wrap non-hidden files (files whose >> name do not begin with a dot) in bin and sbin? Sure, sounds reasonable to me. > That sounds good, but I'm not a Python expert, and I don't know if there > are cases where hidden files would need to be wrapped. I'm CCing > Andreas and Mark because they know better than me. The change sounds good, but I think it can't be done on master because it would entail too many rebuilds. I can't tell you roughly how many, because as far as I know we don't have tooling to estimate the number of rebuilds from changing a build system, but I tried adding whitespace to python-build-system.scm and then running "guix system build -n " on my GNOME system and the answer was discouraging. So, I think this is probably a change for core-updates, or possibly for the next 'staging' cycle if we can come up with a better estimate of how many builds are needed. Thanks, Mark