Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Thomas Goirand Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Updated PEP 394 (python and python2 commands) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 21:30:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue May 22 19:24:35 2018 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -5 Organization: Debian User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/15982 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/fcc6f079-9525-8304-b43f-d2c1789b24f0@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 41 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 21:24:12 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <6dc7af52-174f-04c5-9149-cc5affa8afb1@debian.org> <6a23522f-060f-7624-f950-63c8f641bd3f@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:10576 On 05/20/2018 11:49 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/17/2018 08:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> PEP 394 [1] saw an update in April 2018 [2], the diffs at [3]. >> >> The most important change from my point of view is >> >> -* It is suggested that even distribution-specific packages follow the >> - ``python2``/``python3`` convention, even in code that is not intend= ed to >> +* It is strongly encouraged that distribution-specific packages use `= `python2`` >> + or ``python3`` rather than ``python``, even in code that is not int= ended to >> operate on other distributions. >> >> I don't think there is enough time to replace all python shebangs to p= ython2 in >> time for the buster release, however there is no harm in starting this= process >> now. But I'd like to get this done for buster+1, in the case we still= need to >> ship a Python2/2.7, so that buster+1 doesn't ship with a python comman= d, but >> maybe with a python2 command. >=20 > I very much support this proposal, and don't understand why Scott and > Piotr aren't > > (plus seemingly inventing things you haven't proposed). Let me rephrase these last bits between brackets, because it looks like some people understood this as accusations, which isn't the case. So, the (politically) correct wording would be: "I believe Scott and Pitor misunderstood the intial proposal, and extrapolated it to the point that they thought things that were not in the initial proposal were there." Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)