Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: dev-lang/go prefix patch hard coding a path to a binary

2015-11-25 Thread Daniel Campbell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 11/23/2015 08:41 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
> 
> there is a patch to dev-lang/go that was added a while back w/o 
> consulting me [1]. I eventually did review the patch, and I see
> that it hard codes a path to the sysctl binary on OSx. In my view,
> prefix or not, we shouldn't be patching software to hard code paths
> to binaries; we should be fixing PATH instead.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> William
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558368
> 

I'm not a Go developer, but that *does* seem like the saner, standard
route to go about things.

- -- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=bYlr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



[gentoo-dev] rfc: dev-lang/go prefix patch hard coding a path to a binary

2015-11-23 Thread William Hubbs
All,

there is a patch to dev-lang/go that was added a while back w/o
consulting me [1]. I eventually did review the patch, and I see that it
hard codes a path to the sysctl binary on OSx. In my view, prefix or
not, we shouldn't be patching software to hard code paths to binaries;
we should be fixing PATH instead.

Thoughts?

William

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558368


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature