From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34437) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1evQ8H-0001Z9-Hj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:17:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1evQ8E-0004Yz-8i for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:17:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49534) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1evQ8E-0004Yj-45 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:17:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1evQ8D-0004YG-V6 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:17:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#30761] [PATCH staging 1/9] gnu: meson: Don't wrap the meson executable. Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <20180309180914.22752-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <20180309181108.22888-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <87vae2tfxy.fsf@gnu.org> <876061jw9o.fsf@fastmail.com> <87k1uhpf5p.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2opicaf.fsf@fastmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:16:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87r2opicaf.fsf@fastmail.com> (Marius Bakke's message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:44:24 +0100") Message-ID: <87efkpmfq0.fsf@gnu.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: Marius Bakke Cc: 30761@debbugs.gnu.org Marius Bakke skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> It does mean that people installing meson in their profile will get >> something missing-python-module errors, right? > > Meson actually propagates Python, which will set up PYTHONPATH. So in a > profile or environment it works just fine. The only problem is when > trying to invoke /gnu/store/...meson-0.45/bin/meson directly. OK, perfect. >> Should we do the wrapping differently? > > ISTR a discussion about a language-aware wrapper, which would solve > this. Then we could wrap it with PATH and PYTHONPATH and get rid of > Python propagation. But for now I think we're good :-) Yes, future work! :-) Ludo=E2=80=99.