Re: Updated PEP 394 (python and python2 commands)
On Friday, May 18, 2018 11:31:37 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 18.05.2018 05:19, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > [Matthias Klose, 2018-05-17]
> >
> >> PEP 394 [1] saw an update in April 2018 [2], the diffs at [3].
> >>
> >> The most important change from my point of view is
> >>
> >> -* It is suggested that even distribution-specific packages follow the
> >> - ``python2``/``python3`` convention, even in code that is not intended
> >> to
> >> +* It is strongly encouraged that distribution-specific packages use
> >> ``python2`` + or ``python3`` rather than ``python``, even in code that
> >> is not intended to>>
> >> operate on other distributions.
> >
> > FTR: the day this PEP asks us to point /usr/bin/python to python3 is the
> > day I start ignoring it, to say the least.
> >
> >> I don't think there is enough time to replace all python shebangs to
> >> python2 in time for the buster release, however there is no harm in
> >> starting this process now.
> >
> > too late, this process has already started (since dh_python2 v3.20180313)
> > ;-P>
> >> But I'd like to get this done for buster+1, in the case we still need to
> >> ship a Python2/2.7, so that buster+1 doesn't ship with a python command,
> >> but maybe with a python2 command.
> >
> > we already ship /usr/bin/python2. Removing /usr/bin/python makes sense
> > as well (administrators can symlink it to whatever they want once it's
> > gone from Debian), but...
> >
> >> The first step is to create a set of python2* packages in
> >> python-defaults, with contain all the python2* symlinks, and having the
> >> python* packages depend on those python2 packages. This change itself
> >> is a no-op and shouldn't affect anything.
> >>
> >> As a second step change the dh_python2 (in python-defaults), and
> >> dh-python to generate dependencies on python2 instead of python, and
> >> replacing the shebang from python to python2.
> >>
> >> This should cover the majority of packages to replace dependencies on
> >> python with dependencies on python2. There are packages which don't
> >> check for python2, so these probably need adjustments. But again, the
> >> goal for buster+1 is to ship as few Python2 dependent packages as
> >> possible, if any.
> >
> > this is useless. What will we gain by renaming packages?
>
> who said, that we should rename packages? The only packages being dropped
> are the python defaults packages.
>
> > I refuse to do that work!
>
> There is no work in renaming the packages. It's about the dependency
> generation and the shebang.
>
> > The only message it sends is that we don't think /usr/bin/python or
> > python package is Python 2.7 anymore and that's definitely not the
> > message I want to send.
>
> No, that's not what the PEP says.
Upstream is free to follow Arch in their insanity (even if more slowly) and
suggest pointing /usr/bin/python at a python3 version is a reasonable thing to
do (eventually). It's not (and they even explain why in the PEP). Debian
doesn't have to follow. We can have higher standards.
I don't see any reason to be able to "apt install python2" instead of "apt
install python". I think it's perfectly fine the way it is now where the same
package provides /usr/bin/oython and /usr/bin/python2. If you exclude
eventually pointint /usr/bin/python at a python3 version (and we should), then
there's no value in doing it.
I agree with Piotr. I don't think we need to "create a set of python2*
packages".
Scott K
Reply to: