GNU bug report logs - #27791
[PATCH] gnu: Add passmenu

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 27791 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
Subject: [bug#27791] [PATCH] gnu: Add passmenu
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:09:56 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Jelle,
>>
>> Is anything holding this back?
>>
>>   https://bugs.gnu.org/27791
>
> It just fell through the cracks, thanks for reminding me :-).
> I still needed to address some of Marius' concerns though...
>
>>
>> TIA!  :-)
>>
>> Ludo’.
>>
>> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Hi Jelle,
>>>
>>> Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello guix,
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a patch to include passmenu, a dmenu interface to the pass
>>>> password store.
>>>>
>>>> I was not quite sure how to structure this patch, as it basically installs
>>>> and wraps a shell script from the `password-store' sources. We could
>>>> instead include it as a separate output of our `password-store' package,
>>>> but I already had it like this in my GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH and I was not even
>>>> sure if that approach was in general preferable.
>>>
>>> I don't think wrapping it with dmenu in PATH is necessary. Users of this
>>> script are expected to have dmenu from before, and may want to use
>>> another implementation (e.g. rofi), another version, etc.
>
> While I agree with your general thoughts, wasn't guix supposed to
> prevent this ad-hoc mishmash of software? If someone wants to use
> another implementation (e.g. rofi), they could just create their own
> package that inherits from `password-store' and overrides the "dmenu"
> input. Case in point, I am not currently a user of dmenu (besides
> indirectly through the passmenu script).

In the "rofi" case it would be overriding dmenu and providing some extra
command-line arguments, but overall I agree with you and don't really
have a strong opinion.  To my knowledge there is no established policy
for when to allow "impurities" (aka unqualified paths), but optional
dependencies often get a free pass.

I'm happy either way, so do what you think is best :)

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.