Message148192
> Hmm, my initial reaction is that that specific wording is stronger than I had in mind -
> there's nothing really wrong with having a shebang line and execute bit set on a top level
> module and symlinking it from /usr/bin.
Okay. (On that topic, http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2011/11/msg00058.html may interest you.)
> The problem is that we're doing those things for modules that we *don't* install as binaries,
> and that's silly
Yep. Attached patch removes them for 3.3.
> I'd also mention the justification that this is due to such shebang lines creating a
> maintenance problem for handling parallel installations of different Python versions.
I’d rather just say that it’s unneeded. With all due respect to the original poster, I don’t think this really caused problems.
I will move my addition to the stdlib-only section. I’m not sure about OS-neutrality; the executable bit is Unix-specific and I’d rather use that exact term than a vague “flagged as executable”. I’ll make the part about shebangs neutral however, it won’t be hard.
About this part of your proposal:
> Any installed scripts should use a shebang line of the form::
> #!/usr/bin/env pythonX.Y
Due to the use of distutils’ build_scripts that hard-codes one path, I’m not sure it’s time yet to make that recommendation. For packaging, I intend to launch a discussion about that behavior, which is often unhelpful.
I really appreciate your taking time to review, and will submit the next revision of the patch here before going to python-dev. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-11-23 17:04:58 | eric.araujo | set | recipients:
+ eric.araujo, georg.brandl, jcea, ncoghlan, belopolsky, orsenthil, eric.smith, benjamin.peterson, ned.deily, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, docs@python, allan, python-dev |
2011-11-23 17:04:57 | eric.araujo | set | messageid: <1322067897.01.0.0183869407517.issue10318@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-11-23 17:04:56 | eric.araujo | link | issue10318 messages |
2011-11-23 17:04:55 | eric.araujo | create | |
|