This pep is old, and was written back when python 2.x was actively used and supported. It says: 'we messed this up, we won't make specific decisions or recommendations, we leave it up to distros to set the policy and sort the mess'.
I think it's time upstream makes a decision about providing python symlink directly upstream and writes a new pep. But I won't try to convince them. Alex On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 18:36, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Doesn't https://peps.python.org/pep-0394/ recommend the current status > quo anyway? > > Distributors may choose to set the behavior of the python command as follows: > python2, > python3, > not provide python command, allow python to be configurable by an end > user or a system administrator. > > When packaging third party Python scripts, distributors are encouraged > to change less specific shebangs to more specific ones. This ensures > software is used with the latest version of Python available, and it > can remove a dependency on Python 2. The details on what specifics to > set are left to the distributors; though. Example specifics could > include: > Changing python shebangs to python3 when Python 3.x is supported. > Changing python shebangs to python2 when Python 3.x is not yet supported. > Changing python3 shebangs to python3.8 if the software is built with Python > 3.8. > > My preference would be to keep it as is and not merge this change as RP said. > > If we drop the patches then we go against the recommendation to use > more specific shebangs and if we don't drop them then > python-is-python3 recipes or package shouldn't be needed. > > Cheers, > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 6:18 PM Alexander Kanavin via > lists.openembedded.org <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 18:01, Richard Purdie > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Having listened to the discussions and given this is pretty much a > > > solved problem for the majority of our current metadata, I'm in favour > > > of maintaining the status quo and not taking this change, even if we > > > have to carry a few patches. It does at least make the situation quite > > > clear and explicit. > > > > I'm fine with this. We have significantly bigger issues in oe-core > > (e.g. the rust situation where the slide behind upstream is constantly > > growing). > > > > I think the really correct solution is a coordinated effort by common > > distributions to convince python upstream to add the symlink directly > > in cpython installation. Or make an official statement that it is not > > going to happen, which would explicitly mean that scripts *have* to be > > written with python3 shebang. > > > > Alex > > > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#202469): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/202469 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/107264938/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
