Re: A tale of two `clojure` scripts: Upstream's vs. Debian's

[Leandro Doctors <ldoctors@gmail.com>]

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 6:50 PM, Elana Hashman <ehashman@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 04:39:24AM -0300, Leandro Doctors wrote:

Thanks for your detailed reply, Elana!

I'm moving this part of my answer to this thread.


> > if we look at the upstream `clj` code [3], we realize it
> > simply bundles its own `clojure` wrapper and `rlwrap`. So, there's no actual `clj`...
>
> There is in fact an actual clj, as well as an upstream clojure
> entrypoint:

I know :-)
I was trying to be... "poetical". I simply missed the quotes :-)

My point was that "clj" simply wraps upstream's "clojure" with
`rlwrap`, and that the one that does all the heavy lifting is
upstream's "clojure".

Indeed, when we look at the source code, Debian's "clojure" and
upstream's "clj" work in (almost) the same way. This is, they both
wrap *something* into `rlwrap`.
How *I* see it (I could be wrong on this), the difference lies in
*what* they wrap.
In the case of Debian's "clojure", it's `clojure.main`.
In the case of upstream's "clj", it's upstream's "clojure".

(Please, refer to the previous message in this thread for more details.)

Best,
Leandro