Re: The case for moving raw binaries

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Freitag, dem 29.04.2022 um 11:27 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> [...]
> 
> I thought that
> 
>   (if already-wrapped?
>       ;; PROG is already a wrapper: add the new "export VAR=VALUE"
>       ;; lines just before the last line.
>       [...])
> 
> in 'wrap-program' would avoid creating ..foo-real-real?
You are correct, I was going on old info that I haven't checked since.

This leaves us with
> That said, the proposed new behaviour seems reasonable to me --
> "pidof emacs" would then actually find Emacs.
and the annoyance that "." shell-completes to all the wrapped binaries.
For the former, there is IIRC still a bug in tramp (and I'm sure other
emacs packages), because a process name doesn't match the expected
regexp.

As for where to move things, I'm starting to lean a little closer
towards having an own output.  That way, we don't need to worry about
stuff from different directories (e.g. bin and sbin) shadowing each
other (even though that shouldn't occur), but more importantly, if we
need to copy data into rawbin so that it's correctly resolved, we can
do that.  The only thing that doesn't quite work is relative resolution
of commands, which would go through the wrapper-less binaries instead.
However, given that the wrapperless binary is invoked from a wrapped
binary, I am 73.69% certain, that this ought not to create too much of
a problem w.r.t. the set environment variables.

WDYT?