Re: Using update-alternatives for /usr/bin provided binaries

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

> Hi everyone in the Python list!
>
> I've been working with Ben Finney on upgrading python-coverage to 3.7. I
> believe the package was in good shape before the upload

My heartfelt thanks to Thomas for working to help me improve the
packaging of Coverage 3.7 to the point where it is suitable for release.

> which uses update-alternatives, like I saw in other python packages
> (for example, in waitress, and many others). Ben didn't agree with it,
> he wrote to me on IRC that there is a "controversy" about it.

My disagreement is several-fold:

* The binary package ‘python-coverage’ is for Python 2, and
  ‘python3-coverage’ is for Python 3. These are, as I understand it,
  deliberately treated as distinct runtime systems in Debian's Python
  world.

  So is it correct for both of them to attempt to provide the same
  command, when in most Python packages we're deliberately naming
  development tools to have Python 3 explicitly a separate runtime
  system?

* If we're not going to have Python 2 and Python 3 packages attempt to
  provide the same command name, there doesn't seem much point using the
  Debian alternatives system. A symlink, as is already used in existing
  releases of the package, should be sufficient.

* The name ‘/usr/bin/coverage’ is, IMO, far too generic to claim in
  Debian for a Python-only development tool. This was the reason for
  renaming the binary ‘/usr/bin/python-coverage’ in every Debian release
  of the package so far.

> We both didn't want to hold the update of python-coverage which was
> really overdue: the last upload was from 2012-05, and version 3.6
> (required for many packages) was released early last January. So I
> went ahead and sponsored the upload of python-coverage 3.7.

I'm really glad to see this, and thanks to Thomas for agreeing to get
Coverage 3.7 into Debian separately from this mostly-unrelated issue.

> Though, #726255 still needs a resolution, and I would like to have the
> view of other Python module maintainers. Is using update-alternatives
> the way to go? Was my commit correct? Is there any other (better) way to
> do things here?
>
> Please let both Ben and I know your view.

Likewise. (I'm subscribed to this forum, and AFAIK Thomas is also, so
no need to Cc us on the discussion.)

-- 
 \     “I must say that I find television very educational. The minute |
  `\       somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a book.” |
_o__)                                                    —Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney