Re: CLI recommendations for version-specific /usr/bin scripts
On Nov 11, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
>On 11 November 2013 08:45, Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> * Expose /usr/bin/foo with a shebang line of #!/usr/bin/python
>>
>> * Expose /usr/bin/foo-3 with a shebang line of #!/usr/bin/python3
>>
>
>In upstream IPython, we now install an ipython2 script on Python 2,
>paralleling the ipython3 script. The packaging in Debian for pip likewise
>installs /usr/bin/pip2, and as recently discussed, a python2 symlink is now
>created. Should this be part of the recommendation?
Good question. I guess I prefer not including a generic python2 version of
the script (e.g. no /usr/bin/pip2, just /usr/bin/pip for the Python 2
version). But I also don't feel strongly about this - I just probably
wouldn't use it.
>> Question: dash or no dash in the script name?
>
>I feel like I mostly see the single-digit version number without a dash
>(nosetests3) and the two part number with a dash (nosetests-2.7). I'm
>inclined to leave the dash out where it makes sense, in line with the
>/usr/bin/python* naming, but I don't feel strongly about it.
The problem with not using a dash is evident in the nose/nose2 case. Does
/usr/bin/nose2 mean "nose for Python 2" or "nose2 for Python, um something"?
So in your case, what would happen if an incompatible version called IPython 2
were released? What would you call its /usr/bin script?
I guess you can also just punt on that until it happens. I agree that the
no-dash case looks a little better, but like you I don't have strong opinions
either way.
-Barry
Reply to: