On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:07:09PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > So what you guys are proposing is to introduce a new wrapper script, in > its own binary package, whose name is not endorsed by upstream, and > which will end-up completely Debian specific. > > Am I really the only one in this team to think this proposal is a > complete non-sense?
Ok, this is a different matter than what Sandro brought up, though.
Anyhow, I wouldn't call it "complete non-sense" but just a tad unwise,
as any non-upstreamed debian-specific change is, nothing more.
If instead of renaming that binary, it was called /usr/bin/cpuinfo my
own proposition would still make sense, and your too.
> > Surely I'm not the only one who would consider moving the file back to
> > python3-cpuinfo a step backward…
>
> I fail to understand how your anti-Python-3 feelings add anything
> constructive to this thread. Moving on.
lol.
Trust me, I am very far from being an "anti-Python-3" person :D
If anything, I wish for Python 2 to be retired *soon* and python3 to
take the lead everywhere.
What I am "against" is for /usr/bin/ files to be in library packages, be
them python2's or python3's.
> AFAIC, I happily use pytest or sphinx via their respective python[3]-
> pytest
There is a peculiar thing about pytest: the version of python used
matters. That's different than most python /usr/bin/* things.
> and python[3]-sphinx.
neither python-sphnix nor python3-sphinx ship anything in /usr/bin, so
bad example.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
