[Exherbo-dev] [RFC] Unprefixed executables.

Marc-Antoine Perennou Marc-Antoine at perennou.com
Sat Mar 26 12:34:39 UTC 2016

On 25 March 2016 at 15:47, Wouter van Kesteren <woutershep at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Kylie McClain <somasissounds at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Wouter van Kesteren
>> <woutershep at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1. what directory are we picking?
>> In the Gerrit changes, I saw you were using /etc/env.d for storing the
>> banned executables, which I think is a bad idea; things that are put
>> in /etc tend to imply a level of user-customizability. Sure, that
>> can't really be said for everything within /etc, but I think it's a
>> reasonable standard to give to things in /etc. My point, is that I
>> think it should be put in some other directory which is a little less
>> visible to users.
>> since i
>> My preference would probably be something close to the rest of the
>> utilities we use in exheres-0, in /usr/host/libexec/paludis, but I
>> have a feeling that wouldn't fly with Ciaran.
> I personally don't want 'paludis' nor 'exheres-0' mentioned in the
> path to avoid coupling them together. Remember this is a path we cant
> easily change once we settle on it. Say if paludis will shuffle its
> utilities infrastructure around we cant really do the same for this
> since its already on disk and potentially in premade pbins all over
> the place. Saying 'paludis moved internal things, now you have to
> recompile all packages using the banning system' is something i
> desperately want to avoid. Seeing as we cant guarantee to stay close
> to it its best to not go near it at all.
> Also it's a bit annoying having target dependent stuff in the path,
> it'd mean what we put in the config wouldn't be equal to BANNEDDIR
> anymore and we need some @TARGET@ then or something in the config and
> make paludis do the substition. I mean if everyone demands it we
> could, but as a result i think i prefer to keep it in architecture
> independent directories if at all possible unless someone gives an
> example of executables that we need to ban on one arch, but not in
> another arch.
> If you people don't want it in /etc (which seems to be the general
> vibe) how about like /usr/share/exherbo/banned_by_package_manager/?

I was thinking of this exact dir too, so +1 for me.

> (Quick though that popped in: then having /usr/share/exherbo/ maybe we
> can also make eclectic's alternatives system use
> /usr/share/exherbo/alternatives/? At least i get the feeling that the
> same arguments that go against /etc for this apply to the alternatives
> stuff in /etc too. We shouldn't overly focus on this but if we can
> potentially get a path for both that'd be a nice bonus?)

That would be really nice in the future indeed

>>> 2. what will the implementation of the tiny ban scripts be?
>> The implementation you're using in Gerrit (banned_by_package_manager)
>> seems fine to me.
>>> 3. do we want some helper like dobanned and/or env like BANNEDDIR
>>> given by paludis and/or exlib?
>> I question the usefulness of a dedicated helper for it, but having a
>> BANNEDDIR seems like a good idea. The helper just seems a little weird
>> to me since it could just as easily be done with a `herebin
>> ${BANNEDDIR}/gcc` invocation.
> Too bad herebin doesn't take a path argument but instead takes a name
> and goes into ${TEMP}/${1} before going to ${DESTTREE}/bin/${1}
> through dobin ${TEMP}/${1}. ;)
> _______________________________________________
> Exherbo-dev mailing list
> Exherbo-dev at lists.exherbo.org
> http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev

More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list