Re: [PATCH] global: resolve Perl executable via PATH

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2194 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:54:49AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> 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. :)

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.

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]