From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266891F452 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=DalDDFBN; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233838AbjDESoS (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:44:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41292 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229484AbjDESoQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:44:16 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8623E35B1 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id ix20so35292574plb.3 for ; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680720255; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=I8aR/WwZoYC5Mf7ShdigVuhga8dpmhX6F8EurBUriMw=; b=DalDDFBNvTkTFvpRToyVjVWy9BlXS8CACsq4G0KFqkAVSoGfz5C1AjDGybesx8/pTh K4F+fzEcYLMRzldBz9ruZDHTzVXZnT7mlg61UqrrC+oQw/hqlchK7ddpjV0xQ6scV+aN TgK06baMJas4is6Z4Em+yG39A6HK/Kf3ffc6FgOqTa2yyHsxWi/ocG+h1EB8aJpHydLS auE/TukxnTRszBoZYFQy+AVUa89+BFR9Qjyn+ZowBnuJ7wp7j3fAA8vP/zWQSZ3uLtHl 7FZfcrfTR0Q0uQv3aPeWQNBFt5i5aOJEYf9hDMA0t9hPcI0a0GUKhyIuPiDZhgo/GilV DXCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680720255; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=I8aR/WwZoYC5Mf7ShdigVuhga8dpmhX6F8EurBUriMw=; b=TDOck6UDdDYBiGKA5KH+DAasqOJ/A101FQGNh3MDoFWKEKJm8HCB0RJwhFNCyx+kBL EWq8nWQoXcv0V1TaP/z/QZiKXLC60G3EKi5jpxCxI5X1usSJ7BoaeOOCLSBK6Q3HbLWj f3LDbGpU23knZiBLVYMmFVukyIO8v57oAA0dkxnHlgv+BPv0LAxs3JJwoW1hhWKhp/dR ahUOW4YDJxNSCVJyRj9g1D59HKBmL+x2uPK61+Rl+p6SA04tFDKDDG22xvF8X5ZhG4gh 10xQo9ocB6Llhy4iQWd0UwFPzVzfKi7ZO7lG6lKLfUVZ9LYNKUwNOaQdqxVcNBYyXqKK a5jQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fTw5hv3r2JXY7tsakzG6S1qR6hRBDH4/TVCHTwJXuo7y5PgFna auX2Ke7YvUqyki4TLovkEU8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aCjCuiNYitF2pmGZQ1vS3uqWhh9ajvJaF8KEso3LE5PbEp2O5HPUUpoJrH1xqa9pFIBGs/9Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:32c1:b0:1a1:dd2a:fe72 with SMTP id i1-20020a17090332c100b001a1dd2afe72mr9128810plr.23.1680720254741; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (254.80.82.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.82.80.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c3-20020a170902aa4300b0019f2a7f4d16sm10448895plr.39.2023.04.05.11.44.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 05 Apr 2023 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Todd Zullinger , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] global: resolve Perl executable via PATH References: Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 11:44:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Wed, 5 Apr 2023 19:35:44 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Patrick Steinhardt writes: >> I don't know what the right choice is for upstream Git, it >> can easily be argued in either direction. :) > > I agree, there is no clearly-superior choice -- both have their merits. > I'll probably send a v2 that only munges internal scripts that are used > as part of our build and testing infrastructure. That's the area I care > most about in this context anyway. My preference is (1) not to touch scripts that are processed by Makefile to use $PERL_PATH, (2) fix callers of "./foo.pl" to invoke "$PERL_PATH ./foo.pl" where the perl () { command "$PERL_PATH" "$@" } wrapper is not avialable, and (3) fix them to use "perl foo.pl" where the wrapper is visible. That way, we can wean ourselves away from the assumption that perl interpreter should exist at /usr/bin/perl without introducing a new assumption that everybody's env should exist at /usr/bin/env. There may already be scripts that assume "#!/usr/bin/env foo" is acceptable, but fixing them would be outside the scope of this discussion, I would say. Thanks all for a good discussion.