Re: Claiming ‘/usr/bin/coverage’ for a Python-specific programmer tool
Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:
> On 10/15/2013 06:21 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> > What sort of upstream "source code" would be using the /usr/bin
> > wrapper at all? (I ask this question without prejudice; I can
> > obviously imagine some ways this might happen, but I'm more
> > interested in the actual existing use cases that you implied, not
> > ones that only exist in my imagination)
>
> I'm not sure if you're talking about the *full path* bit or what.
> Upstream code (or at least, unit tests...) is calling "coverage" from
> the standard accessible $PATH.
If some upstream code is making many invocations of one command with a
hard-coded name, that's an argument to work with upstream and ask them
to parameterise their code better (and patch it until they do), so
OS packagers can easily alter the invocations to match OS-specific
command locations.
This effort is part of maintaining software in Debian: working with
upstream to convince them to make their code work well in a universal
operating system.
In which vein, you've motivated me to raise an issue for this problem
upstream <URL:https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issue/272/> with the
Python Coverage library maintainer, to argue for addressing the cause of
the problem. Thanks!
--
\ “… one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was |
`\ that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful |
_o__) termination of their C programs.” —Robert Firth |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Reply to: