On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:11:39PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote: > I noticed when packaging this that when "python" is provided as an input > (and not python-2), then the python scripts don't get their shebangs fixed, > because there is no python executable in the $PATH (it is python3). This > seems not right to me - is there a reason for this, maybe so python 2 and 3 > can coexist?
Yes. Our python package follows upstream and only provides binaries called python3 and python3.4. The python-2.7.10 package also follows upstream (you can see a pattern here :-)) and provides python, python2 and python2.7. You will probably want to use python-wrapper, which corresponds to the python package with an additional symbolic link python->python3 (and some others); it is actually used in a number of package recipes. Andreas
