Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcr...@uq.edu.au> writes: > Thanks for that Ricardo. One question though. > > On 26/09/15 00:09, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> [..] >> (although the PYTHONPATH is a little too >> broad as you also noted). > I was wondering whether including the native-inputs breaks > reproducibility. For instance, if we install seqmagick through a > substitute, then the wrapper will point to a python-nose (a native-input > of seqmagick) directory in the store, even if this directory does not > exist. So then, later building python-nose and creating the directory in > the PYTHONPATH might change the behavior of seqmagick, no?
I think this possibility does in fact exist, but it usually isn’t a problem unless the programme were designed to behave differently in the presence of the native-input. If, for example, python-nose provided a conflicting module overriding one used by seqmagick at runtime, this could conceivably lead to an error if python-nose would be added to the store. I do not think that this is a realistic problem, but wrapping an executable in a PYTHONPATH that is needlessly large is certainly not nice. ~~ Ricardo
