On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 08:44, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net> wrote: > > 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. > I frequently have python3 in /usr/local/bin instead. Sometimes in other places, depending on how many of them I've installed and from where. Using /usr/bin/env python3 ensures that it does the same as the "python3" command even if there's a venv active.
(And yes, sometimes that's good, sometimes bad.) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
