On Nov 11, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: >On 11 November 2013 08:45, Barry Warsaw <ba...@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 -- 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/20131111191422.0784e25e@anarchist
