Matthias Klose wrote: > The distro should get > out of the way of using the python symlink, and giving users the freedom / > choice what to do about the link.
I think I understand your rationale to stop shipping /usr/bin/python and once the unversioned symlink disappears from use in Debian then at least that particular avenue to breaking one's system disappears. What I don't understand is why any changes to package names or dependencies are required to achieve that goal. It sounds like a reasonable amount of work in your proposal, but once we no longer have any Python 2 applications left at some stage in the bullseye cycle, isn't the following sufficient? --- a/debian/rules +++ b/debian/rules @@ -247,12 +247,9 @@ binary-arch: build install stamp-doc : # provide the python and python.1 defaults mkdir -p debian/python-minimal/usr/bin - ln -sf python$(VER) debian/python-minimal/usr/bin/python ln -sf python$(VER) debian/python-minimal/usr/bin/python2 mkdir -p debian/python-minimal/usr/share/man/man1 - ln -sf python$(VER).1.gz \ - debian/python-minimal/usr/share/man/man1/python.1.gz ln -sf python$(VER).1.gz \ debian/python-minimal/usr/share/man/man1/python2.1.gz and then either later in the bullseye or bookworm cycles, those python- defaults simply go away along with all the other 'unversioned' python module and interpreter packages. What have I (and others!) missed that would make a rather elaborate packaging dance preferable to this? cheers Stuart -- Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7