From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve shell script headers and pre-inst-env handling
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:42:01 +0100
Message-ID: <87liasnume.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87haliz4nt.fsf@tines.lan> <87fw11v83n.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87d2w5xtg5.fsf@tines.lan> <87y5etnqyj.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87obfpqhif.fsf@tines.lan>
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]:45067)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5dXK-0004rd-Lr
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:42:20 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5dXJ-00064Z-5y
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:42:14 -0500
Received: from [2a01:e0b:1:123:ca0a:a9ff:fe03:271e] (port=51005
	helo=xanadu.aquilenet.fr) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5dXJ-00063K-0A
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:42:13 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87obfpqhif.fsf@tines.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 12
	Feb 2013 17:44:40 -0500")
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: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:
>>
>>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>>>> Honestly, I wouldn=E2=80=99t worry about the propagation of $GUILE_LOA=
D_PATH &
>>>> co. to subprocesses, because we know there=E2=80=99s none anyway.
>>>
>>> That policy will lead to future where libguile-using programs break in
>>> random ways when they happen to be subprocesses of each other.
>>
>> I agree in general with your feeling.
>>
>> However, in that case, we know that these command-line tools are just
>> wrappers around our Scheme APIs, and that they won=E2=80=99t ever launch=
 any
>> program (programs are a thing of the past; procedures are the future).
>> So it just seemed safe to me to do that in this particular case.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Ah, okay, I didn't realize that.  When you said "we know there's none
> anyway", I thought you meant "no subprocesses that use Guile", but I
> guess you meant "no subprocesses at all".

Exactly.

> I guess guix-daemon is the only one with subprocesses, and by the time
> that's written in Guile hopefully Guile will have a command-line option
> to augment %load-compiled-path.

Actually, guix-daemon spawns processes written in Guile, such as
list-runtime-roots and hopefully soon a =E2=80=9Cbinary substituter=E2=80=
=9D, but these
should be simple stand-alone programs.

> In that case, I withdraw my proposal.  I'll make a new patch.

Thanks!

Ludo=E2=80=99.