[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl
From: |
Andreas Enge |
Subject: |
Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:43:12 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) |
Am Montag, 25. Februar 2013 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> Andreas Enge <address@hidden> writes:
> > (has-env (string-suffix? "/env" interp))
>
> I think we might want to make this test more restrictive. I'm looking
> at a package (guile-figl) that includes an 'env' script in its build
> directory, analogous to 'pre-inst-env' in Guix. This makes me worry
> that the test above will have false positives.
>
> In practice, the path used is (almost?) always "/usr/bin/env".
> I suspect it would be safer to check for that exact string.
I also wondered whether we should do this. Do you have a concrete example
where the current test fails? Notice that the suffix is only part of the
test; currently, we patch files that start with
[[:blank:]]*#![[:graph:]]*/env
Unless a problem manifests itself, I would not change that behaviour.
Andreas
- Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, (continued)
- Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, Andreas Enge, 2013/02/23
- Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/02/23
- Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, Andreas Enge, 2013/02/23
- Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/02/23
- Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, Andreas Enge, 2013/02/23
- Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/02/23
- Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, Andreas Enge, 2013/02/23
Re: #!/usr/bin/env perl, Mark H Weaver, 2013/02/24