[pkg-wine-party] Try 3: WoW64 implemented Re: Call for testing: automatically detect wine arch and WoW64

[Jens Reyer]

On 01/10/2016 03:44 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Jens Reyer wrote:
>> Is there any reason not to use exec in the wrapper script's last line?
>> Otherwise I'd suggest to do that.
> 
> Is there a particular reason to?  The overhead of the shell process
> continuing isn't so large.

I'm not aware of any issues that actually do harm. But it's generally
recommended for wrapper scripts (based on the first three results of a
quick web search for exec+wrapper, including the FreeBSD porters
handbook [1]). Reasons stated are:

- PID stays the same, allowing e.g. easier process communication,
however I'm not aware of this being relevant for wine. Not sure,
especially for the wineserver, where I don't use exec either. Tests so
far didn't show any issues however.

- Saves system resources (you already commented on that).

- Saves one process fork.

... and imo the output of ps is easier to read.


>> AFAIK manpages.patch was needed because the "-" were incorrectly
>> encoded, and didn't work for copy&pasting. This seems to be fixed now,
>> so unless there are other issues we can drop that.
> 
> This fixed a lintian error at the time.  If lintian no longer flags it
> anymore, then ok, otherwise no.

Yes, lintian doesn't complain about that. Committed.

Greets
jre


[1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/dads-sh-exec.html