Re: PEP 394 and shebang lines for /usr/bin/python2 scripts
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 07:09:26 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Alright, I obviously haven't convinced anybody, so I'll drop it. We'll let
> the PEP 394 bug reports speak for themselves <wink>. But the responses I've
> read so far make me think I probably wasn't clear in what I am proposing.
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:09 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >and you want to force an administrator who has a service using Python 2.X
> >with lots of scripts with /usr/bin/python shebang to do additional work?
>
> Of course not. I'm not proposing that that administrators or really
> any*body* has to do anything different, or even make any changes to their
> stuff. I'm specifically suggesting that when dh_python2 rewrites shebang
> lines, it use /usr/bin/python2 instead of /usr/bin/python, i.e. when
> --no-shebang-rewrite or --shebang=COMMAND is *not* given.
>
> What does this mean? Upstreams don't have to change anything. Developers
> and maintainers don't have to change anything. Admins don't have to change
> the shebang lines on their one-off scripts. No person has to change a
> thing[1]. It only means that when dh_python2 installs a script *on Debian
> systems with a new enough dh_python2*, the rewritten shebang line would be
> /usr/bin/python2. Nothing would happen on Wheezy for example.
>
> Maybe I'm being dense, but I just don't see how that's at all risky.
>
> But as I said, I won't push it.
> -Barry
>
> [1] Well, Piotr would have to change one or two lines in debpython/tools.py
> :)
Please don't assume that because people are disagreeing with you, it's because
you weren't clear about what you were suggesting. I got it. At best it's a
waste of time.
Also, even if switching stuff was a good idea (and it's not), we're no where
near the center of mass being close to having switched to python3:
$ grep -c Package:\ python- Packages
1811
$ grep -c Package:\ python3- Packages
275
Scott K
Reply to: