On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:27:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:32:33AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > > Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:13:17AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > > > Say, you would install 2.1.2 in /usr/local. > > > How about we just say "Don't install other versions of python in > > > /usr/local" ? > > Please no. Making this work properly is not hard. > > Again, _why_ does this matter? Who does this? Is it even remotely common? > That people would even consider installing another version of python in > /usr/local surely just points to a problem with the Debian packaging, no?
The most common reason for installing python in /usr/local is to play with the latest and greatest bleeding edge. Typicaly you want to play without everything else installed on you system suddenly using and relying on your experiment. I know that you can rename the executable to something else, but what does a basic "make install" do? > The problems with using "#!/usr/bin/python1.5" is threefold: first, it > makes dependencies that much more complicated: *all* python scripts have > to depend on versioned modules in every way, ie "Depends: python1.5-base, > python1.5-glade, python1.5-gtk, python1.5-numeric", second it means *all* How else are you going to ensure that a script that relies on version 1.5 of python runs using that version, when you also have python2.1-base installed, and python-base has made the default /usr/bin/python point at /usr/bin/python2.1? If it genuinely needs python1.5 and related modules, there is no other way to specify the dependancies either. I think you are mistaking this as a suggestion to always refer to a particular version of python. This is not what is being proposed... the #!/usr/bin/pythonX.Y" is only for scripts that explicitly rely on a particular version of Python. For version independant or "default version" dependant scripts, "#!/usr/bin/python" is recomended. The real debate here is "#!/usr/bin/python[X.Y]" vs "#!/usr/bin/env python[X.Y]" (note the X.Y is optional) for Debian scripts. From hearing the arguments for and against, I agree with Gregor; "#!/usr/bin/python[X.Y]" is safer and should be recommended, but packagers might have legitimate reasons for using "#!/usr/bin/env python[X.Y]". ie, leave it up to the package mantainers, but make them aware of the pro's and con's. > python executables need to be modified at the source level for every > python upgrade, and finally it makes Debian veer away from upstream > standards for python scripts. This is the strongest argument for /usr/bin/env... > If you install new versions of standard tools in /usr/local you have > to be careful. This applies to a hypothetical /usr/local/bin/dpkg, or [...] but remember why /usr/bin/env was made the upstream standard; it was because Python is not a "standard tool", and hence could be located in /usr/local/bin, ~/bin, or anywhere. The env trick meant scripts could run without modification on any system, regardless of where Python was installed. In a Debian package environment, we have the benefit of a garenteed location for python, and a dependancy system to ensure it's actualy there. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key ----------------------------------------------------------------------
