[Barry Warsaw, 2013-07-25]
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:09 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >and you want to force an administrator who has a service using Python 2.X
> >with lots of scripts with /usr/bin/python shebang to do additional work?
>
> Of course not. I'm not proposing that that administrators
On 25 July 2013 11:09, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Alright, I obviously haven't convinced anybody, so I'll drop it. We'll let
> the PEP 394 bug reports speak for themselves . But the responses I've
> read so far make me think I probably wasn't clear in what I am proposing.
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:0
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 07:09:26 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Alright, I obviously haven't convinced anybody, so I'll drop it. We'll let
> the PEP 394 bug reports speak for themselves . But the responses I've
> read so far make me think I probably wasn't clear in what I am proposing.
> On Jul 25,
On 25 July 2013 07:52, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> When my co-worker (who doesn't use Debian on his desktop/laptop
> machines) asked me if Debian will change the /usr/bin/python symlink
> anytime soon and I told him "over my (or python2.X's) dead body", he
> responded with: "that's why I use Debian
Alright, I obviously haven't convinced anybody, so I'll drop it. We'll let
the PEP 394 bug reports speak for themselves . But the responses I've
read so far make me think I probably wasn't clear in what I am proposing.
On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:09 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>and you want to force
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 02:04:17PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 01:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >>* Barry Warsaw , 2013-07-24, 12:38:
> >>>In any case, it's come up that PEP 394 recommends distros start
> >>>adopting shebang lines that state /usr/bin/p
[Barry Warsaw, 2013-07-24]
> I think it's low risk, and probably an easy change, but I agree that *right
> now* it's probably low value. Maybe a useful way to think about it is in the
> context of future Debian releases.
We will not support python2.X sometime in the future. Upstream will
not supp
[Barry Warsaw, 2013-07-24]
> Can you or Jakub elaborate on *why* you think it's a bad idea?
because our users trust us.
They have their own scripts and they don't want to be forced to do
unnecessary work, nobody wants. Using /usr/bin/python2 in Debian
packages sends a wrong message to them.
When
On Jul 24, 2013, at 02:14 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>Don't we have more important things to worry about? It only matters at all if
>one is contemplating switching the /usr/bin/python symlink to python3. We
>aren't, so let's not change something just to change it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Barry Warsaw wrote:
>On Jul 24, 2013, at 01:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>Jakub Wilk wrote:
>>>* Barry Warsaw , 2013-07-24, 12:38:
In any case, it's come up that PEP 394 recommends distros start
adopting shebang lines that state /usr/bin/python2 in their scripts,
>
and I don't
On Jul 24, 2013, at 01:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>Jakub Wilk wrote:
>>* Barry Warsaw , 2013-07-24, 12:38:
>>>In any case, it's come up that PEP 394 recommends distros start
>>>adopting shebang lines that state /usr/bin/python2 in their scripts,
>>>and I don't think we do this yet. We shoul
Jakub Wilk wrote:
>* Barry Warsaw , 2013-07-24, 12:38:
>>In any case, it's come up that PEP 394 recommends distros start
>>adopting shebang lines that state /usr/bin/python2 in their scripts,
>>and I don't think we do this yet. We should!
>
>We absolutely should not.
Definitely not. The ent
* Barry Warsaw , 2013-07-24, 12:38:
In any case, it's come up that PEP 394 recommends distros start
adopting shebang lines that state /usr/bin/python2 in their scripts,
and I don't think we do this yet. We should!
We absolutely should not.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-p
(adding some references)
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:38:58PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Over in python-dev, there's a discussion started about PEP 394
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-July/127516.html
> and what /usr/bin/python points to by default in Fedora.
See also
https://li
Over in python-dev, there's a discussion started about PEP 394, and what
/usr/bin/python points to by default in Fedora. I hope I've stated the Debian
case accurately and of the general consensus of this team.
In any case, it's come up that PEP 394 recommends distros start adopting
shebang lines
15 matches
Mail list logo
