[Nix-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/2] t/scons

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

Just my 2c:

I was probably the worst person to decide whether to apply this patch or not. 
However, I was the only person who noticed that this patch has ben lying 
dormant for several months already. Nobody committed it, but nobody objected 
either. I saw this patch as well-intentioned and applied it...

It would be so much better if people gave feedback on the areas that interest 
them in a reasonable timeframe...

As to the patch itself, apparently the fast fix is to offer upstream scons and 
a wrapper with Marc's patch. Upstream by default and wrapped for install 
scripts used in nixpkgs.


On Wednesday 22 December 2010 18:33:05 Marc Weber wrote:
> Excerpts from Eelco Dolstra's message of Wed Dec 22 15:22:14 +0100 2010:
> > That is, most of the tools provided by stdenv.  This way, we actually get
> > *more* predictable behaviour than upstream, so it's at least in the
> > spirit of the upstream behaviour of not using the caller's environment. 
> > What do you think?
> 
> I've had the issue that gcc wasn't found. So it would have solved my issue.
> However you know that in nixpkgs you're likely to override gcc. If you
> hardcode gcc it won't work as expected in all cases.
> So you fix something and you add potential breakage.
> So what could be done ? Should we introduce PATH_STANDARD_TOOLS (which
> can't be defined) but which could be used instead? KISS (keeping things
> stupid simple is most important). So I still vote for my patch. But I
> have it applied anyway. So its up to you to judge.
> 
> The patch was very long on the mailinglist. That feedback was given that
> late illustrates that the current workflow of submitting patches works
> but is not perfect. Its also you (the cummunity) who has to decide
> whether you want this kind of "commit -> revert" or "commit -> fix"
> history more often than necessary.

-- 
Evgeny