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 \

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?


Stuart Prescott
Debian Developer
GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7

Reply via email to