Hi Chris, A friendly ping. :-)
Ludo’. Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> skribis: > Hi Chris, > > Did you have a chance to look into it? > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53355 > > TIA. :-) > > Ludo’. > > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> skribis: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> Thanks for debugging this! >> >> Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> From c3eea81846ae71a246e6b592be74062f4bf26474 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:15:14 -0800 >>> Subject: [PATCH] environment: Prevent PS1 from clobbering output in 'check'. >>> >>> Fixes: <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/51466>. >>> >>> * guix/scripts/environment.scm (child-shell-environment): In the script >>> executed the child shell, set PS1 to an empty value and then echo three >>> sentinel lines to try to "flush" the original PS1 value before printing the >>> environment variables. In the parent process, read and discard all lines up >>> to and including the last sentinel line. After that, read the remaining >>> lines >>> as usual. >> >> [...] >> >>> + ;; Why print "GUIX_FLUSH" a few times? We are trying to "flush" the >>> + ;; original PS1 value to the port so we can read it (and discard it) >>> + ;; before we start reading the environment variables from the port. >>> If we >>> + ;; don't do this, the original PS1 value can sometimes get interleaved >>> + ;; into the output, which interferes with our parsing logic. It's a >>> hack, >>> + ;; but in practice it seems to do the job. If you know of a more >>> graceful >>> + ;; solution, please implement it! See: >>> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/51466 >>> + "PS1=; for i in 1 2 3; do echo GUIX_FLUSH_$i; done; \ >>> +env || /usr/bin/env || set; echo GUIX-CHECK-DONE; read x; exit\n") >> >> So you confirm that a single “echo” is not enough, right? >> >> Perhaps we should unroll the ‘for’ loop for portability, to be on the >> safe side. Initially I tested with Bash, Zsh, and Fish: >> >> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/51285#0-lineno49 >> >> I think Fish has a very non-POSIX syntax, hence the suggestion to avoid >> ‘for’. >> >> I realized that setting PS1 could interfere with the logic below that >> checks for PS1. And since it doesn’t seem to help, perhaps we can >> remove “PS1=;”? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Sorry to answer with yet more questions! >> >> Thanks, >> Ludo’.