[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Removing /usr/bin/nosetests-3.x scripts

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.


Is #4 really that horrible?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: