Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: > Hmm, my initial reaction is that that specific wording is stronger than I had > in mind - > there's nothing really wrong with having a shebang line and execute bit set > on a top level > module and symlinking it from /usr/bin. Okay. (On that topic, http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2011/11/msg00058.html may interest you.)
> The problem is that we're doing those things for modules that we *don't* > install as binaries, > and that's silly Yep. Attached patch removes them for 3.3. > I'd also mention the justification that this is due to such shebang lines > creating a > maintenance problem for handling parallel installations of different Python > versions. I’d rather just say that it’s unneeded. With all due respect to the original poster, I don’t think this really caused problems. I will move my addition to the stdlib-only section. I’m not sure about OS-neutrality; the executable bit is Unix-specific and I’d rather use that exact term than a vague “flagged as executable”. I’ll make the part about shebangs neutral however, it won’t be hard. About this part of your proposal: > Any installed scripts should use a shebang line of the form:: > #!/usr/bin/env pythonX.Y Due to the use of distutils’ build_scripts that hard-codes one path, I’m not sure it’s time yet to make that recommendation. For packaging, I intend to launch a discussion about that behavior, which is often unhelpful. I really appreciate your taking time to review, and will submit the next revision of the patch here before going to python-dev. ---------- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file23763/no-shebangs-for-stdlib.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10318> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
