On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 21:51 +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Mon, 21.09.2009 at 12:13:46 +0200, Wolodja Wentland > <wentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
----
Note
----
Let me first say one thing.
I actually planned to write a big "thank you for the discussion" mail
this evening, because I really had the feeling that I as a Debian *user*
can help to improve Debian by discussing problems I have in my daily life
with the distribution I love on the appropriate lists. If the points I
make in the discussion are valid they are brought to the attention of
the right people who might act accordingly and the world is a better
place.
If I made mistakes or had misunderstandings I will quickly be corrected
and I will have learned something valuable about Debian. People might
change the documentation so other users don't face the same problems
again. No harm done here as well ...
Your mail however changed that feeling significantly and I think that
this gives a wrong example ...
------
Thanks
------
To everybody who contributed to this thread:
THANK YOU! I really appreciate the time you spend on reading my mails
and crafting your own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFF TOPIC:
> > Hmmm, no. Python applications that need a specific version of Python
> > should use
> > #!/usr/bin/env pythonX.Y
> > or
> > #!/usr/bin/pythonX.Y
> > stating that they need this specific version of Python.
>
> how else is an application supposed to state that it needs a specific
> Python version?
Huh?! Why should there be another way? They could however just use
/usr/bin/python without specifying a Python version although they fail
to run if they are executed with one of the "wrong" ones.
> > A lot of Python software runs with different Python versions and if
> > there are differences the application is buggy and should get fixed.
> *LOL*
?
> You might want to look into "fixing" Zope that way. Good luck, and I
> guess that some fame will come your way, should you succeed.
I would consider specifying the specific Python version a program has to
be run with a possible fix, which is why i started the reply with
"Python applications that need a specific [...] version should use [...]
[to] state they need this specific version of Python"
> However, I agree that it's generally desirable to be able to run
> applications on "any" Python version, but, as with probably all other
> bigger systems (Java, ...), it is just not realistic to say "If app X
> doesn't run with all environments Y, then the app is broken", simply
> because no-one will be inclined, or even able, to "fix" it, usually for
> marginal benefit.
Do you *really* believe I think that every Python program should run
with every Python release that was ever released? As in running a Python
program developed using 2.5 with 1.0?
To make sure that I am not misunderstood and the words are not twisted
in my mouth:
--- snip ---
1.3.1 Interpreter Name
Python scripts depending on the default Python version (see Main
package, Section 1.2) or not depending on a specific Python version
should use python (unversioned) as the interpreter name.
Python scripts that only work with a specific Python version must
explicitly use the versioned interpreter name (pythonX.Y).
--- snip ---
I would consider programs not following this to be buggy.
Toni, let's stop the discussion here or take it off-list because this
has almost nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Kind regards
Wolodja
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
