From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56399) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eD9i8-0006lp-5p for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:51:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eD9i2-0008D6-4r for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:51:08 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:52911) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eD9i2-0008CT-0v for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:51:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eD9i1-0001xL-O8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:51:01 -0500 Subject: bug#27791: [PATCH] gnu: Add passmenu Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: References: <87zibw4oen.fsf@fastmail.com> <87tvyzcjmg.fsf@gnu.org> <87shejmbml.fsf@fsfe.org> <87efq27nij.fsf@fastmail.com> From: Jelle Licht In-reply-to: <87efq27nij.fsf@fastmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:50:08 +0100 Message-ID: <87r2t69ran.fsf@fsfe.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 27791-done@debbugs.gnu.org In the end, I simply added dmenu to the list of `inputs' and replaced my calls to `wrap-program' with a `substitute*' call. Pushed as 177475cfb5 to master. Someone wanting to make use of an alternative to dmenu could just inherit from `password-store' in order to override the relevant inputs and/or phases. The closure size of password-store went from ~421MB to ~440MB, but as it is not a dependency of any non-password-store related items, this should not be a big problem. Thanks again for the guidance and reminders. Marius Bakke writes: > Jelle Licht writes: > >> Ludovic Courtès writes: >> >>> Hi Jelle, >>> >>> Is anything holding this back? >>> >>> https://bugs.gnu.org/27791 >> >> It just fell through the cracks, thanks for reminding me :-). >> I still needed to address some of Marius' concerns though... >> >>> >>> TIA! :-) >>> >>> Ludo’. >>> >>> Marius Bakke skribis: >>> >>>> Hi Jelle, >>>> >>>> Jelle Licht writes: >>>> >>>>> Hello guix, >>>>> >>>>> Attached is a patch to include passmenu, a dmenu interface to the pass >>>>> password store. >>>>> >>>>> I was not quite sure how to structure this patch, as it basically installs >>>>> and wraps a shell script from the `password-store' sources. We could >>>>> instead include it as a separate output of our `password-store' package, >>>>> but I already had it like this in my GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH and I was not even >>>>> sure if that approach was in general preferable. >>>> >>>> I don't think wrapping it with dmenu in PATH is necessary. Users of this >>>> script are expected to have dmenu from before, and may want to use >>>> another implementation (e.g. rofi), another version, etc. >> >> While I agree with your general thoughts, wasn't guix supposed to >> prevent this ad-hoc mishmash of software? If someone wants to use >> another implementation (e.g. rofi), they could just create their own >> package that inherits from `password-store' and overrides the "dmenu" >> input. Case in point, I am not currently a user of dmenu (besides >> indirectly through the passmenu script). > > In the "rofi" case it would be overriding dmenu and providing some extra > command-line arguments, but overall I agree with you and don't really > have a strong opinion. To my knowledge there is no established policy > for when to allow "impurities" (aka unqualified paths), but optional > dependencies often get a free pass. > > I'm happy either way, so do what you think is best :)