On 22 June 2011 23:14, Ahmad Samir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 June 2011 22:47, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm known to be grumpy and difficult, but I also believe in simplicity as a >> policy, therefore I'd like to ask you something. >> >> By no means I want to question Ahmad's judgment, however I strongly disagree >> with him on one point. As a _principle_. Otherwise, it's a tiny punctual >> question, but I'd like to know Mageia's patching _policy_. >> >> See comments 50 and downwards: >> >> https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1659#c50 >> >> calibre-python2-env-fix.patch replaces >> '/usr/bin/env python2' >> with >> '/usr/bin/env python' >> >> The calibre developer has used '/usr/bin/env python' for ages, but >> relatively recently he has decided to switch to '/usr/bin/env python2' for >> fear that some distros would use Python 3 by default. >> >> Ahmad insists that '/usr/bin/python' should be used in Mageia. >> > > Actually, I said that the shebang should be removed altogether. Which > is what was being done all those years calibre existed in the Mandriva > repos (the same for Fedora, since they do remove the shebang, as the > calibre spec was originally imported from Fedora, which I said in the > report too).
Of course, or just /usr/bin/python. The /usr/bin/env way may be useful for upstream when creating binary tarballs; but not for us we build the package, and we know which version of python exists in the release we're pushing it to. Also, /usr/bin/python2 doesn't exist to begin with, as mikala pointed out. > >> As long as '/usr/bin/env python' _works_, I see no point in trying to >> rewrite other people's work. >> >> I would say that the general principle should be to apply a _minimal_ >> patching, not to try to rewrite the work of the developers of hundreds of >> packages! >> >> A distro's job is not to judge the work of the _upstream_ developers as long >> as this is not a real bug. >> >> "Should" Mageia try to "fix" something that is not actually broken? There >> might be hundreds of packages with thousands and thousands of questionable >> decisions taken by the upstream developers -- however, why fixing something >> that works? >> >> You see, I hate conflicts (although I seem to be a maestro in generating >> them), but I also need simplicity and clear policies. Also, policies that >> can be applied. "Perfect" policies that would require the revision of >> hundreds of packages that actually work are not my cup of tea. >> >> Of course, I am _not_ a Mageia packager and this is not "my" package, but >> I'd like to know Mageia's policy wrt building packages. Normally, patches >> are not meant to optimize but to fix breakages. If the packagers are >> compelled to "improve" upstream's work, this can prove to be catastrophic in >> complex cases. >> >> >> Thank you, >> R-C aka beranger >> > > > > -- > Ahmad Samir > -- Ahmad Samir
