On October 23, 2020 10:15:09 AM CDT, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
<blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 09:04:53AM +0200, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 2020-10-23 at 07:00 +0100, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 04:44:19PM +0100, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:24:52PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > On 2020-10-22 16:14 +0100, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
>> > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 06:25:59AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via
>blfs-
>> > > > > dev wrote:
>> > > > > > On 10/22/20 12:56 AM, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
>> > > > > > > On October 21, 2020 10:48:39 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs via
>blfs-
>> > > > > > > dev
>> > > > > > > <blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On 10/21/20 10:06 PM, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Ywah, I've now found a non-book package (youtube-dl) which
>defaults
>> > > to '/usr/bin/env python' (in its Makefile) but can be overridden
>by
>> > > passing PYTHON=/usr/bin/python3 (or probably just =python3).
>> > >
>> > > It turns out that whatever we do will probably cause some work.
>> > >
>> > Reluctantly, I have to go with a python symlink. Out of the more
>> > than 48000 tests in clang-11.0, one uses /usr/bin/env/python.
>> >
>>
>> When we find something like that, couldn't we use:
>> grep -rl '#!.*python' | xargs sed -i
>> '1{s/python$/python3/;s/python[^3]/python3}'
>>
>> or so?
>> Of course, P2 only scripts would still fail, but at least, nothing
>> would depend on a python symlink.
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>I think the problem is more that using env python is hidden deep
>within a lot of packages.
>
>I've already comments (e.g. from python2.6 -> 2.7 days) that python
>is an intrinsic part of the OS and changing it (rather than pointing
>to an extra installed version) is a bad idea which breaks things.
>My point is that this seems to be a deep assumption among peopel who
>code python scripts.
>
>In this case, when I first compiled and tested llvm-11 on this new
>ystem I had python -> python2 and that test passed. There were some
>new failures from a non-available static lib. Now that I'm
>measuring it I saw that I'd got rid of those failures, but gained an
>extra one. Finding it was somewhat painful.
>
>For tests (I had made the symlink for 3 and rebuilt before reading your
>mail, they are currently running) I don't think it matters a great
>deal. I'm more concerned about installed scripts (in other
>packages) which may randomly fail at runtime.
>
>ĸen
>--
>The people next door oppress me all night long. I tell them: I work
>all day, a man's got to have some time to learn to play the tuba.
>That's oppression, that is. [ Guards! Guards! ]
>--
>http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
>FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
>Unsubscribe: See the above information page
This _should_ go away on its own eventually. You are supposed to specify the
major version. If a particular script doesn't, it is broken. Opening bugs for
these errors upstream is entirely appropriate.
--DJ
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
