On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:29:34PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/12/2013 04:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > >>> +++ b/autobuild.sh > >>> @@ -13,6 +13,12 @@ python setup.py build > >>> python setup.py test > >>> python setup.py install --root="$AUTOBUILD_INSTALL_ROOT" > >>> > >> > >> I haven't tested it, but shouldn't these lines ^^, and others similar > >> to them, be changed to "python2" in case my default python version is > >> 3? And if those "python2" are checked as well, it would be usable > >> even without python2. > > > > Yes, we should use python2 > > But does 'python2' exist in PATH on RHEL5? You have to be careful that > whatever solution you have works on systems with only one python > installed (whether that be old systems with python 2, or bleeding edge > systems with _only_ python 3). > Yes, it is. Python started to use these names quite a long time ago. We could even build with different python 2 versions (python2.6, python2.7, etc.) which are properly instantiated, I believe, in all stable to modern distros. Running any versioned binary should be checked for anyway, so we don't end up in a situation where we're calling one that doesn't exist, IMHO. Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list