Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, at 12:59 PM, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Am Freitag, dem 29.04.2022 um 11:27 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: >> [...] >> >> 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? > You are correct, I was going on old info that I haven't checked since. > > This leaves us with >> That said, the proposed new behaviour seems reasonable to me -- >> "pidof emacs" would then actually find Emacs. > and the annoyance that "." shell-completes to all the wrapped binaries. > For the former, there is IIRC still a bug in tramp (and I'm sure other > emacs packages), because a process name doesn't match the expected > regexp. > > As for where to move things, I'm starting to lean a little closer > towards having an own output. That way, we don't need to worry about > stuff from different directories (e.g. bin and sbin) shadowing each > other (even though that shouldn't occur), but more importantly, if we > need to copy data into rawbin so that it's correctly resolved, we can > do that. The only thing that doesn't quite work is relative resolution > of commands, which would go through the wrapper-less binaries instead. > However, given that the wrapperless binary is invoked from a wrapped > binary, I am 73.69% certain, that this ought not to create too much of > a problem w.r.t. the set environment variables. > > WDYT?
I was mildly annoyed recently with several programs that use the ".foo-real" name in their `--help` output, for example: ``` $ guix shell --pure reuse -- reuse -h usage: .reuse-real [-h] [--debug] [--include-submodules] ``` I wondered about just changing `wrap-program` to put the real program at `.real/foo` instead of `.foo-real`. One advantage is that it wouldn't need any special cooperation like setting up an output or an environment variable. -Philip
