Nikita Karetnikov <nik...@karetnikov.org> skribis: >> Yes, definitely. But that’s not a problem: these scripts are most >> likely unused during the build process and afterward. > > So, should I package it (without replacing shells)?
No, no need for zsh here, AFAICS. >>> * guix/build/utils.scm (wrap-program): Assume that 'prog' is an >>> absolute filename. Adjust 'prog-real' and 'prog-tmp' accordingly. >>> Also, change 'prog-tmp' to honor command line arguments. > >> What was wrong with the previous approach? I don’t like the “assume >> it’s an absolute file name” bit, because we don’t know whether the >> assumption holds. > > Well, have a look at this snippet: > > + (for-each (cut wrap-program <> var) > + files))) > > Each 'file' here will have an absolute filename. > > I failed to make it work with the previous version. Can you clarify what didn’t work exactly? It’s not clear to me. >> You need double quotes around $@. > > Why should I add them? So that argument expansion does not incur further splitting, in case of arguments containing white space (info "(bash) Special Parameters"). >> You also need to keep (package-native-search-paths python). See commit >> 35ac56b6, which fixed that for Perl & co. > > Could you elaborate? Why is it needed? Is it necessary to add > 'python-search-paths'? If you append (package-native-search-paths python) to the list of search paths, then PYTHONPATH will automagically be defined appropriately (see <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2013-03/msg00158.html>.) If you don’t, then PYTHONPATH will be undefined, unless you explicitly define it in build/python-build-system.scm, which is not the recommended option. So just mimic the change made in the above commit for perl-build-system. HTH, Ludo’.
