From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id eBkBCf4yW1/bZQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:19:10 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id AKk6A/4yW19FQQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:19:10 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C379404C5 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33450 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGeGy-0004A4-5I for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 04:19:08 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGeGs-00049n-3G for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 04:19:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58919) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGeGr-0007pQ-QL for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 04:19:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGeGr-0001nU-Lk for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 04:19:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#43249] Resent-From: Brendan Tildesley Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:19:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43249 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: pratheblackdiamond@gmail.com, 43249@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: Prafulla Giri , 43249@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-patches@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.15998123116870 (code B ref -1); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:19:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Sep 2020 08:18:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42232 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGeGN-0001mk-6I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 04:18:31 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:56304) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGeGI-0001mS-FB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 04:18:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57702) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGeGI-00046k-9o for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 04:18:26 -0400 Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org ([2001:67c:2050::465:201]:14662) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_CHACHA20_POLY1305:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGeGF-0007kn-Fq for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 04:18:25 -0400 Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [80.241.60.241]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BnpY70RhzzQlKL; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:18:19 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brendan.scot; s=MBO0001; t=1599812297; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rjyVwzRasrsJ+QUOhQ05CIaXeammTB0FYsNxIOqE/fY=; b=rCpsFUBejLZTkDHU/t+50m3DQTNRLFmLVlQ0cN7Ap6jhqFDTcPUwBmJz/jNFqZK3PV/Nbh iTDcycukgQUdex2/qXhkKCluw9eHrPFDgSaIUyCgm1mbMwiPrw+TzwEnKG2pgqfHybRasR y8yETCZQoycOTNnJvAy7uHSVl2EsxYrfmfdl1jTp8DQy+aHMAo2H52TGJWVuy0mWuUWZ7G Us8gsAYq+nhsPpuqB7IoDJq49AfegPlecquOkYFeHdA4kQUhg5jKvgb91vjxAVjyTvJzvG 2jm4Zn1pdnl4ZdzDFLTkQnHlJ85/S1dS4IDBLamNUzPfcMriPai/gMRKrLnz+Q== Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.241]) by spamfilter06.heinlein-hosting.de (spamfilter06.heinlein-hosting.de [80.241.56.125]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id XcQBYf95kg_L; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:18:15 +0200 (CEST) References: <87d02wca8d.fsf@elephly.net> <330470a6-e6d2-e679-32ac-a308d89a5e92@brendan.scot> <87tuw54vhy.fsf@elephly.net> From: Brendan Tildesley Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 18:18:21 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87tuw54vhy.fsf@elephly.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FB5D643FC194339E6F97494A" Content-Language: en-US X-MBO-SPAM-Probability: X-Rspamd-Score: -4.69 / 15.00 / 15.00 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AD2C226E X-Rspamd-UID: 5e64ca Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:67c:2050::465:201; envelope-from=mail@brendan.scot; helo=mout-p-201.mailbox.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=brendan.scot header.s=MBO0001 header.b=rCpsFUBe; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.49 X-TUID: Q0fn+JuPkagl This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------FB5D643FC194339E6F97494A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/9/20 11:22 pm, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Brendan Tildesley writes: > >> I guess then we should patch wrap-program to add >> >> (when (wrapper? prog) >> (error (string-append prog " is a wrapper. Refusing to wrap."))) > Should it really refuse to wrap or *add* its variables to the existing > wrapper? > If there is a /bin/foo and /bin/.foo-real created by wrap-program, and we are to run another wrap-program phase, under what circumstances would it /not/ be a mistake to call (wrap-program "/bin/.foo-real") instead of (wrap-program "/bin/foo")? And if the first one was called, probably it was because find-files was used and the packager didn't realise it was happening, and therefore it will be double-wrapped, like gedit is. --------------FB5D643FC194339E6F97494A Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/9/20 11:22 pm, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
Brendan Tildesley <mail@brendan.scot> writes:


I guess then we should patch wrap-program to add

(when (wrapper? prog)
    (error (string-append prog " is a wrapper. Refusing to wrap.")))

Should it really refuse to wrap or *add* its variables to the existing
wrapper?

If there is a /bin/foo and /bin/.foo-real created by wrap-program, and we are to run another wrap-program phase, under what circumstances would it not be a mistake to call (wrap-program "/bin/.foo-real") instead of (wrap-program "/bin/foo")? And if the first one was called, probably it was because find-files was used and the packager didn't realise it was happening, and therefore it will be double-wrapped, like gedit is.

--------------FB5D643FC194339E6F97494A--