Re: .py endings or no .py endings for scientific packages
Hi Tony,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 03:02:35PM +0100, Tony Travis wrote:
> In principle, I agree, but it's difficult to write
> "implementation-agnostic" software for M$ Windows, because the file
> 'extensions' are used by Windows to identify the file type and how to
> launch it.
>
> Infuriatingly, Windows conceals file extensions by default in its file
> manager so users therefore see the program name without a ".py" suffix!
I admit I would hate if broken design of Windows would reach out to
Debian.
> > [...] I do
> > not think that beeing a scientist is an excuse to ignore good hints from
> > IT experts. We can not do much about it but I would even consider it
> > mean if we know good reasons for better names and hide this from
> > upstream.
>
> That's rather harsh and,
May be I was simply to short but if you want to read really harsh mails
feel free to read some threads on debian-devel where some people sound
like excluding scientific software in general from Debian (its not a
majority but there are exist examples which are motivating me in turn to
be picky about sticking to policy if anyhow possible).
> remember, that being an IT expert is no excuse
> to ignore the pragmatic solutions that scientists often have to adopt to
> overcome the real constraints of working under a hostile IT policy that
> mandates the use of Windows and dscourages or forbids the use of Linux.
I fail to see in how far this is a constraint that affects scientific
software only.
> It's important that we address cross-platform issues like .py endings
> constructively. Simply stating that it is wrong isn't helpful.
Sure. That's why we assembled IMHO good documentation and links that
really sound constructive and helpful[1]. If you think there is room
for enhancement please enhance (or send me patches I'd happily include).
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Language_extensions_in_scripts
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: