On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:04:32AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009, Luca Falavigna wrote: > > I entirely read the 1.9.0.0 draft, I've got some thoughts on it.
> Thanks for your review, I'm attaching the following new patches:
> s/binary/interpreter for /usr/bin/python*
I think this is a policy regression, actually. The fact that
/usr/bin/python2.x is a binary, and /usr/bin/python is a symlink pointing to
a binary, is not irrelevant - we certainly don't want someone to get the
idea that it's ok to replace either of these with a script...
So I would revert the first chunk, and for the second chunk change it to:
@@ -153,7 +154,8 @@
</p>
<p>
At any time, the <package>python</package> package must ensure
- that the binary <file>/usr/bin/python</file> is provided.
+ that <file>/usr/bin/python</file> is provided as a symlink to the
+ current <file>python<var>X</var>.<var>Y</var></file> executable.
The <package>python</package> package must also depend on the
appropriate <package>python<var>X</var>.<var>Y</var></package> to
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
