[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The case for moving raw binaries
From: |
Maxime Devos |
Subject: |
Re: The case for moving raw binaries |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:27:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.3-1 |
Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 29-04-2022 om 06:13 [+0200]:
> The extra wrapping isn't cancelled though? You just append the
> definition of $Y to the the already existing definitions, but you don't
> move the wrapper to $RAWBIN_DIR, because the actual binary already
> exists there.
As I understood it, the suggestion was to cancel wrapping if there's
already things in $RAWBIN_DIR.
> In other words, you have after wrap:
> - bin/foo ~> rawbin/foo
> and after wrap-again
> - bin/foo ~> rawbin/foo
> where ~> is the wrapping relation.
>
> Currently, you have after one wrap
> - bin/foo ~> bin/.foo-real
> after two
> - bin/foo ~> bin/.foo-real
> - bin/.foo-real ~> bin/..foo-real-real
> after three
> - bin/foo ~> bin/.foo-real
> - bin/.foo-real ~> bin/..foo-real-real
> - bin/..foo-real-real ~> bin/...foo-real-real-real
> and so on.
>
> Is this clearer now?
I thought that
(if already-wrapped?
;; PROG is already a wrapper: add the new "export VAR=VALUE"
;; lines just before the last line.
[...])
in 'wrap-program' would avoid creating ..foo-real-real?
Also, doesn't 'wrap-program' refuse to wrap .foo-real:
(when (wrapped-program? prog)
(error (string-append prog " is a wrapper. Refusing to wrap.")))
so ..foo-real-real shouldn't be created in the first place?
Do you have a concrete example in which ..foo-real-real happens?
That said, the proposed new behaviour seems reasonable to me -- "pidof
emacs" would then actually find Emacs.
Greetings,
Maxime.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: The case for moving raw binaries, zimoun, 2022/04/29