Barry Scott <ba...@barrys-emacs.org> wrote: > > > > On 7 Nov 2022, at 09:28, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net> wrote: > > > > Chris Green <c...@isbd.net> wrote: > >>> 3: with your pseudo "python3" script in place, make all the scripts use > >>> the "#!/usr/bin/env python3" shebang suggested above. > >>> > >> Yes, that sounds a good plan to me, thanks Cameron. > >> > > Doesn't '#!/usr/bin/env python3' suffer from the same problem as > > '#!/usr/bin/python3' in the sense that the env executable might not be > > in /usr/bin? > > env is always available as /usr/bin/env - I think its spec'ed in posix that > way. > > The only reason that things are in /bin are for systems that need a subset of > programs to boot the system to point it can mount /usr. env is not going to be > needed for that use case. > Given that the problem system is running a very old Linux I'm not sure what chance there is that it's fully posix compliant.
If using "#!/usr/bin/env python3" is a way of avoiding problems if python3 isn't in /usr/bin then why is it any better depending on env being in /usr/bin. -- Chris Green ยท -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
