On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:21:36 +0100 Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb: > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:02:40 +0100 > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> you are called with ABI=sth argv[0] = your name > > > > I'm afraid that's the first potential point of failure. Relying > > on argv[0] is a poor idea and means that any application calling exec() > > with changed argv[0] on a wrapped binary will fail terribly. > > Nobody said, that one cannot create situations, where such a wrapper > does fail, the point is more an easy and general solution for wrapping > binaries without implementing different solutions for the same issue in > every ebuild. There's no such thing as 'easy and general solution'. You always sacrifice something. And in this case, you're creating a point of failure which is completely custom to Gentoo and actually quite hard to track. Just to support a specific package manager feature specific to Gentoo. > If you have a better, yet still easy and general solution not requiring > every ebuild to create something on its own, please write it instead of > just complaining how bad the wrapper solution actually is. The solution is called eclasses. > > Yep, I intended to just have the additional variant of glxinfo directly > > callable, with a name chosen specifically by the X11 team. Wrapper > > would be more confusing than beneficial here IMO. > > Ah, you actually want each ebuild to have its own custom hack instead of > one global solution usable everywhere? Yes. > >> To some extent that's what happened to python too :) As a python > >> maintainer, you could share your thoughts on the topic. python slotting > >> was intended to make switching between python versions easy but has > >> been needing wrappers for the python binary. > > > > I'm doing just that. Any kind of wrapping is an increasing mess. I'm > > still trying to find out good solutions for Python wrapping but there's > > no such thing. It's always about choosing one evil over the other. > > So you are wrapping python, have not yet found anything better and still > dont want to wrap abi-specific binaries, while you dont have a better > solution at hand? Saying no to everything is easy, providing something > better if you dont like a suggestion is the challenge. Yes, it is easy and mess-free. Using a cheap hack is mess-full, and is just asking for trouble which will eventually rise. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
