GNU bug report logs - #29951
[PATCH] WIP guix: Add wrap-script.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: h.goebel <at> crazy-compilers.com, 29951 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#29951] [PATCH] WIP guix: Add wrap-script.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:52:14 +0100

Hi!

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:

> * guix/build/utils.scm (wrap-script): New procedure.

[...]

> +(define wrap-script
> +  (let ((interpreter-regex
> +         (make-regexp
> +          (string-append "^#! ?(/bin/sh|/gnu/store/[^/]+/bin/("
> +                         (string-join '("python[^ ]*"
> +                                        "Rscript"
> +                                        "perl"
> +                                        "ruby"
> +                                        "bash"
> +                                        "sh") "|")
> +                         ") ?.*)")))
> +        (coding-line-regex
> +         (make-regexp
> +          ".*#.*coding[=:][[:space:]]*([-[a-zA-Z_0-9].]+)")))
> +    (lambda* (prog #:rest vars)
> +      "Wrap the script PROG such that VARS are set first.  The format of VARS
> +is the same as in the WRAP-PROGRAM procedure.  This procedure differs from
> +WRAP-PROGRAM in that it does not create a separate shell script.  Instead,
> +PROG is modified directly by prepending a Guile script, which is interpreted
> +as a comment in the script's language.
> +
> +Special encoding comments as supported by Python are recreated on the second
> +line.
> +
> +Note that this procedure can only be used once per file as Guile scripts are
> +not supported."

Nice!

> +      (let-values (((interpreter coding-line)
> +                    (call-with-ascii-input-file prog
> +                      (lambda (p)
> +                        (values (false-if-exception
> +                                 (and=> (regexp-exec interpreter-regex (read-line p))
> +                                        (lambda (m) (match:substring m 1))))
> +                                (false-if-exception
> +                                 (and=> (regexp-exec coding-line-regex (read-line p))
> +                                        (lambda (m) (match:substring m 0)))))))))

‘false-if-exception’ is problematic because it can hide errors.  Could
you narrow that down to the exception type of interest?  Or is there a
risk of random decoding errors and the likes when passed a binary file?

> +        (when interpreter

Should it return #t on success and #f on failure?  Or just thrown an
exception on failure?

> +                                 (which "guile")

Let’s add #:guile defaulting to (which "guile").

I wonder if ‘wrap-program’ could automatically call ‘wrap-script’ when
appropriate so that users don’t have to choose by themselves.  WDYT?

Thanks!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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