[bug#39807] [PATCH] guix: pack: Only wrap executable files.

[Eric Bavier]

On 06.03.2020 05:16, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Eric Bavier <address@hidden> skribis:
>
> > From: Eric Bavier <address@hidden>
> >
> > I feel like a test should be added to tests/guix-pack-relocatable.sh, 
> > but
> > I'm not sure how to do that while keeping the test lightweight.  
> > Suggestions
> > welcome.
>
> Not sure how to do that.  Since ‘guix pack’ accepts manifests, you 
> could
> have a manifest containing a ‘computed-file’ with a file that shouldn’t
> be wrapped, and then you could ensure that’s indeed the case.  Or you
> could try with ‘git-minimal’ or some other package that exhibits the
> problem?

I almost have a working test using 'git-minimal', but I'm not happy with 
the quantity of code needed to setup, and I'm worried now that that test 
would be relying on an implementation detail that could change in the 
future without us noticing (e.g. a git subcommand that's currently a 
shell script is subsumed into git so the test no longer checks what we 
want).

So I think I'll try going the manifest/computed-file route instead.

> > * guix/scripts/pack.scm (wrapped-package)<build>: Build wrappers for
> > executable files and symlink others.
>
> [...]
>
> > -          (for-each build-wrapper
> > -                    (append (find-files (string-append input "/bin"))
> > -                            (find-files (string-append input 
> > "/sbin"))
> > -                            (find-files (string-append input 
> > "/libexec")))))))
> > +          (receive (executables others)
>
> I’d prefer srfi-11 ‘let-values’.  :-)

I tried let-values to begin with, but I found 'receive' to be much 
easier on the eyes.  For the case of binding values from a single 
expression, does let-values offer benefits?  And there are no other uses 
of let-values in this module, so precedent/consistency doesn't seem to 
have weight.

> Otherwise LGTM, thanks!

Thanks for review (and ping)!

--
`~Eric