[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#51466: bug#53355: guix shell --check: confusing error message
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
bug#51466: bug#53355: guix shell --check: confusing error message |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:47:52 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Chris,
Thanks for debugging this!
Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com> skribis:
> From c3eea81846ae71a246e6b592be74062f4bf26474 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@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’.