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: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:48:52 +0100
Message-ID: <87y5etnqyj.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87haliz4nt.fsf@tines.lan> <87fw11v83n.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87d2w5xtg5.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]:33256)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5Niq-0004df-8M
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:49:05 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5Nip-0006RD-7o
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:49:04 -0500
Received: from [2a01:e0b:1:123:ca0a:a9ff:fe03:271e] (port=37307
	helo=xanadu.aquilenet.fr) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5Nip-0006Pn-1r
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:49:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87d2w5xtg5.fsf@tines.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 12
	Feb 2013 13:44:58 -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:
>> Honestly, I wouldn=E2=80=99t worry about the propagation of $GUILE_LOAD_=
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?

(BTW, rather than $GUIX_UNINSTALLED, it just occurred to me that
$GUIX_LOAD_PATH would do just as well while being more generic and
easier to implement/use.)

Ludo=E2=80=99.