On 25 July 2013 11:09, Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> wrote:
> Alright, I obviously haven't convinced anybody, so I'll drop it. We'll let
> the PEP 394 bug reports speak for themselves <wink>. But the responses I've
> read so far make me think I probably wasn't clear in what I am proposing.
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:09 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
>>and you want to force an administrator who has a service using Python 2.X
>>with lots of scripts with /usr/bin/python shebang to do additional work?
>
> Of course not. I'm not proposing that that administrators or really any*body*
> has to do anything different, or even make any changes to their stuff. I'm
> specifically suggesting that when dh_python2 rewrites shebang lines, it use
> /usr/bin/python2 instead of /usr/bin/python, i.e. when --no-shebang-rewrite or
> --shebang=COMMAND is *not* given.
>
> What does this mean? Upstreams don't have to change anything. Developers and
> maintainers don't have to change anything.
Unless they want to install a deb on an older release, as Steve
pointed out. This is actually fairly common. It also introduces a
difference that needs to be documented ('from version X, python2 is
available, but not before') and doesn't really prepare us for some
future move to a different /usr/bin/python, because we haven't even
touched on the implications for:
- local and 3rd party Python2 packages
- local unpackaged Python2 scripts
It may be some time *after* Python2.x is gone from the archive that
all that legacy debt is migrated - if ever.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Cloud Services
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAJ3HoZ08RAG9mUNCPWbnDC1m4oA7ojtoN5Nyb=KMwWLO5y=7...@mail.gmail.com
