[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The case for moving raw binaries
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: The case for moving raw binaries |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:18:23 +0200 |
Hi,
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 18:37, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "raw binaries" (henceforth rawbins) are the unwrapped binaries that
> Guix leaves behind in $PACKAGE/bin with the .$WRAPPER-real name. This
> practise causes several issues. For one, those rawbins are visible in
> the shell by typing a dot and using tab completion. What's more, in
> some build systems there might be two (or even more) off them. This
> makes a generic wrap after wrap pattern almost impossible to achieve.
Could you provide more details or pointers about «several issues»?
For instance, I do not consider that these “rawbins” visible from shell
is an issue. Why do you consider it is one?
And I do not understand what you mean by « makes a generic wrap after
wrap pattern». Could you explain?
> So, what's the fix? I propose moving rawbins to a different location.
> libexec would spring to mind as a place in which we could hide them, so
> would a new directory in the root of $PACKAGE. Other than that, adding
> a rawbin output would also be possible, but I am not certain whether
> that'd be the right tradeoff.
Since I do not understand well the problems, contrary, I find “easier”
to have these “rawbins“ in the output store item. But maybe, I am miss
a key point.
Cheers,
simon
Re: The case for moving raw binaries,
zimoun <=