guix-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#25966: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.


From: Clément Lassieur
Subject: bug#25966: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: gitolite: Fix shebangs in hooks.
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:12:51 +0100
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.2.1

Leo Famulari <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 04:24:14PM +0100, Clément Lassieur wrote:
>> address@hidden writes:
>> 
>> > +                  (add-before 'install 'fix-hooks-shebangs
>> > +                    (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
>> > +                      (let ((perl (string-append (assoc-ref inputs "perl")
>> > +                                                 "/bin/perl")))
>> > +                        ;; The files in 'lib/Gitolite/Hooks' keep 
>> > references to
>> > +                        ;; '/usr/bin/perl', without this fix it is 
>> > impossible to
>> > +                        ;; to run gitolite in production.
>> > +                        (substitute* (find-files "src/lib/Gitolite/Hooks" 
>> > ".*")
>> > +                          (("/usr/bin/perl")
>> > +                           perl))
>> > +                        #t)))
>> 
>> This patch introduces references to the store in files installed by
>> "gitolite setup" command.  Those files are installed once and for all.
>> So for example .gitolite/hooks/common/update's shebang is
>> #!/gnu/store/vcjvzmdy5091bklv73rx9nc0yvlk12yv-perl-5.24.0/bin/perl.  But
>> then what happens when perl is upgraded, and Guix garbage collected?  My
>> understanding is that the shebang won't work anymore, and gitolite will
>> be broken.
>> 
>> One can use instead special-files-service-type, which allows to have
>> /usr/bin/perl working.  But it won't work anymore with this patch.
>
> Ah, seems like the same issue as with the Git hooks.
>
>> I suggest we revert it, but I might be wrong.  WDYT?
>
> If these hooks are intended to be copied out of /gnu/store, then the
> change should be reverted until we have a better solution.
>
> I think it's better for the hook scripts to fail the first time than for
> them to fail later, after a seemingly unrelated action like `guix gc`.

I saw it was reverted.  Thank you all!





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]