Hi all,

After your feedback, I have my answer.

I understand the your points of view and I don't want to change any part
of code for os.system and subprocess, I don't want to deprecate
os.system in favor of subprocess. I just wanted to know your opinion
about this point.

+1 to use os.system when we only need a call without portability, just a
quick code.

+1 for subprocess for the portability.

Thank you so much for your patience/time and your explanations.

Stéphane

On 10/24, Stephane Wirtel wrote:
Good morning/afternoon/evening/night ;-)

In the documentation of os.system [1], there is this paragraph, where we
suggest to use subprocess instead of os.system.

"""
The subprocess module provides more powerful facilities for spawning new
processes and retrieving their results; using that module is preferable
to using this function. See the Replacing Older Functions with the
subprocess Module section in the subprocess documentation for some
helpful recipes.
"""

But I have found some references (between 15 and 23 (if we include
setup.py)) of os.system.


Do we need to keep the code like that or could we start to use
subprocess for these "references" because it is preferable?

If you think we could move to subprocess, I would like to open an issue
and try to fix it.

1. Add the 'deprecated' directive in the doc
2. Use subprocess for these references

What is your opinion?

Thank you,

Stéphane

[1] https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/os.html?highlight=os%20system#os.system

--
Stéphane Wirtel - https://wirtel.be - @matrixise
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/stephane%40wirtel.be

--
Stéphane Wirtel - https://wirtel.be - @matrixise
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to