Re: Removing /usr/bin/nosetests-3.x scripts
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:32:56 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>
> >1. Status quo: Provide a nosetests-3.X script for the default version at
> > build time.
> > Pros: None
> > Cons:
> > - This potentially breaks unit tests if there are two supported 3.x
> > versions.
> >2. Drop all nosetsts-3.X scripts.
> > Pros:
> > - Maintainers who were aware of the problems with 1 had to manually
> > call python3.X /usr/bin/nostests3 anyway, so this doesn't cause
> > them any harm.
> > - Don't accidentally end up with dependencies on all python3.Xs
> > Cons:
> > - Maintainers who weren't needed their packages patched.
> >3. Apply a messy patch to generate scripts based on py3verions -s at
> > build time.
> > Pros:
> > - Neat
> > Cons:
> > - It's ugly as hell
> > - Have to do a sourceful upload for each python3 supported versions
> > change
> > - Will accidentally end up with dependencies on all python3.Xs
> >4. Use .rtinstall, .rtremove, postinst, and prerm scripts to maintain
> > all the nosetsets-3.X scripts (pytest does this)
> > Pros:
> > - Neat
> > - No accidental dependencies on all python3.Xs
> > Cons:
> > - You are creating and deleting things in /usr/bin in maintainer
> > scripts - this made some people cringe.
>
> I wish we would do #4. I suppose it's a little cringe worthy, especially
> because (as you later point out) you'd probably also want to add versions for
> the -dbg flavors too. But that bothers me less than not having those scripts
> available, since I think users will expect them to be there.
>
> For example, the tox documentation example suggests calling nosetests (albeit,
> for Python 2) directly.
>
> http://tox.readthedocs.org/en/latest/example/nose.html?highlight=nose
nosetests isn't going away, and this page doesn't seem to mention a
versioned script.
> Is #4 really that horrible?
>
IMO, yes.
Cheers,
Julien
--
Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr>
Logilab http://www.logilab.fr/
Informatique scientifique & gestion de connaissances
Reply to: