From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58134) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuFrm-000485-Ch for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 07:39:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuFqL-0004e3-RG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 07:38:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:56837) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuFqL-0004dv-NL for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 07:38:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fuFqL-00006H-Jv for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 07:38:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#32102] [PATCH v2 2/2] gnu: gajim: Combine wrap-program phases. Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <20180711192652.20186-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> <20180711192652.20186-3-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> <87zhyv1qe8.fsf@lassieur.org> <87y3dudsz0.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:37:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Arun Isaac's message of "Mon, 30 Jul 2018 06:00:28 +0530") Message-ID: <87mut8avme.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: Arun Isaac Cc: 32102@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur Hi Arun, Sorry for the delay. Arun Isaac skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >>> From 6ee5cf4423109ab64df58c85f4114e456dda098b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Arun Isaac >>> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:03:33 +0530 >>> Subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] build-system: python: Do not double wrap execut= ables. >>> To: clement@lassieur.org >>> Cc: mhw@netris.org, >>> andreas@enge.fr, >>> 32102@debbugs.gnu.org >> >> Hmm, weird! > > What's weird? Are you referring to the Cc field? The people in the Cc > field were originally referred to by Clement. So, I put them there to > keep them in the loop. Yes that makes perfect sense. Sorry for the obscure comment on my side; I was just surprised to see a Cc: header like this in the patch itself, but it=E2=80=99s nothing special after all. >>> (define* (wrap #:key inputs outputs #:allow-other-keys) >>> (define (list-of-files dir) >>> - (map (cut string-append dir "/" <>) >>> - (or (scandir dir (lambda (f) >>> - (let ((s (stat (string-append dir "/" f)))) >>> - (eq? 'regular (stat:type s))))) >>> - '()))) >>> + (find-files dir (lambda (file stat) >>> + (and (eq? 'regular (stat:type stat)) >>> + (not (is-wrapped? file)))))) >> >> Something I don=E2=80=99t get is that =E2=80=98wrap-program=E2=80=99 its= elf is supposed to >> detect already-wrapped program. I vaguely remember discussing it before >> but I forgot what the conclusions were; do we really need extra >> =E2=80=98wrapped?=E2=80=99 checks? Can=E2=80=99t we fix =E2=80=98wrap-p= rogram=E2=80=99 itself? > > Could you refer to our earlier discussion on 32102? > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D32102 > > In the case of Gajim, our current wrapping ends up double wrapping and > creating bin/.gajim-real-real. The original fix I proposed was to modify > `wrap-program` to fix already-wrapped detection. But, after discussion > with Clement, we decided to go with a is-wrapped? check in the python > build system. Do check out our earlier discussion and let us know what > you think. Right. I re-read it and it=E2=80=99s all clear again. :-) The issue is t= hat =E2=80=98list-of-files=E2=80=99 in the =E2=80=98wrap=E2=80=99 phase of pyth= on-build-system would pick up files that are themselves wrappers already. Because of my slow reaction we missed the train of this =E2=80=98core-updat= es=E2=80=99 cycle. :-/ So I think it=E2=80=99ll have to be for next time. Sounds goo= d? Let=E2=80=99s not forget about it=E2=80=A6 Thank you, Ludo=E2=80=99.