Matthias Klose wrote:
> The distro should get
> out of the way of using the python symlink, and giving users the freedom /
> choice what to do about the link.
I think I understand your rationale to stop shipping /usr/bin/python and
once the unversioned symlink disappears from use in Debian then at least
that particular avenue to breaking one's system disappears.
What I don't understand is why any changes to package names or dependencies
are required to achieve that goal.
It sounds like a reasonable amount of work in your proposal, but once we no
longer have any Python 2 applications left at some stage in the bullseye
cycle, isn't the following sufficient?
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -247,12 +247,9 @@ binary-arch: build install stamp-doc
: # provide the python and python.1 defaults
mkdir -p debian/python-minimal/usr/bin
- ln -sf python$(VER) debian/python-minimal/usr/bin/python
ln -sf python$(VER) debian/python-minimal/usr/bin/python2
mkdir -p debian/python-minimal/usr/share/man/man1
- ln -sf python$(VER).1.gz \
- debian/python-minimal/usr/share/man/man1/python.1.gz
ln -sf python$(VER).1.gz \
debian/python-minimal/usr/share/man/man1/python2.1.gz
and then either later in the bullseye or bookworm cycles, those python-
defaults simply go away along with all the other 'unversioned' python module
and interpreter packages.
What have I (and others!) missed that would make a rather elaborate
packaging dance preferable to this?
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
