On Oct 26, 2012, at 09:19 AM, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: >On 25 October 2012 20:34, Piotr Ożarowski <pi...@debian.org> wrote: >> [Steve Langasek, 2012-10-25] >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:56:05AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: >>> > Using -E fixed the immediate bug, but I think it is generally useful to >>> > include -s also, so as to avoid any potential breakage of system scripts >>> > by >>> > things users may have added locally. >>> >>> If there's consensus that this should be dealt with in the packages, best >>> would be to update the tooling (IIRC dh_python* already have some support >>> for shebang rewrites?) and add a lintian warning, foregoing any mass bug >>> filing. >> >> dh_python2 --shebang '/usr/bin/python -Es' >> dh_python3 --shebang '/usr/bin/python3 -Es' >> >> should do the trick. I don't think adding -Es by default is a good idea >> (although it's very tempting). > >Several people have said they don't think this is a good idea. But >why not? There is a bad effect if you don't rewrite the shebang to >"/usr/bin/python[3] -ES" that we know of, but is there any example of >where such a shebang line would cause trouble that warrants not doing >this by default?
(Note it's a lower-case 's'. Upper-case 'S' does something different.) I'm also curious as to why this would be generally bad. I can completely understand that there may be some scripts which you want to allow for user customization, but I think those would be the exception, not the rule. That's why I think turning it on by default, with a --disable flag is probably the right way to go. Cheers, -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026111518.27c10378@resist
