Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 10:42:52AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> Is there a reason to not set PERL_PATH, which is the >> documented method to handle this? From the Makefike: >> >> # Define PERL_PATH to the path of your Perl binary (usually /usr/bin/perl). > > Setting PERL_PATH helps with a subset of invocations where the Makefile > either executes Perl directly or where it writes the shebang itself. But > the majority of scripts I'm touching have `#!/usr/bin/perl` as shebang, > and that path is not adjusted by setting PERL_PATH. Ahh. I wonder if that's intentional? I haven't dug into the history, so I'm not sure. It seems like an oversight, as an initial reaction. > I'd be happy to amend the patch series to only fix up shebangs which > would not be helped by setting PERL_PATH. But if we can make it work > without having to set PERL_PATH at all I don't quite see the point. It's certainly debatable whether using /path/to/env perl is better than hard-coding it at build time (forgetting about the usage of RUNTIME_PREFIX). [Debatable in a friendly sense, of course.] As a distribution packager, I prefer to set the path at build time to help ensure that an end user can't easily break things by installing a different perl in PATH. The Fedora build system will munge /path/to/env perl shebangs to /usr/bin/perl and it won't effect us much. That may not be true for other distributions and they may care more if they want to keep using a hard-coded path to perl. I don't know how it may affects the Windows folks either, who are further askew from our other, more UNIX-like targets. I don't know what the right choice is for upstream Git, it can easily be argued in either direction. :) Cheers, -- Todd
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
