Re: Feature request: setting env vars for binary wrappers

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:32 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 22:27 +0300, Roumen Petrov wrote:
> >> I perfectly know that user 
> >> cannot go in build-dir and just to run secure shell daemon/client.
> > 
> > And if you are happy with that, good for you.  In GNOME though, we want
> > our users to be able to run uninstalled programs.  If this feature is
> > not interesting to you, fine.  I don't understand why you are so
> > opposing it.
> 
> In GNU Smalltalk, "./gst" is used if you don't need to load any plugin, 
> while "tests/gst" is used if you need plugins; "tests/gst" is created by 
> config.status.  Most of the time launching "./gst" is enough; and since 
> its startup time is much faster than "tests/gst", I didn't feel the need 
> to use the more user-friendly executable as the default.

Sure, you have updated for the separate-wrapper option.  Now what
percentage of your users know the difference between ./gst and
tests/gst?  How many read the doc explaining the difference?

> I see how you might consider this a poor choice if you have a lot of 
> executables; OTOH autoconf does the same and has 6-7 executables.

We're talking about every application using GNOME technology...  I don't
understand why something as simple as running uninstalled binaries
should become so painful on the application developer.

> Paolo
-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
 Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759