2011/4/11, Auguste Pop <auguste@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11/04/11 10:48, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Aaron DeVore<aaron.devore@xxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I recently started creating/maintaining packages for the AUR. One >>>> request I've run up against is allowing users to relink >>>> /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python2, but still have package building >>>> work. Apparently the current policy is to use "python setup.py" for >>>> Python 3 packages, but that breaks Python 3 package building for users >>>> who relink. Using "python3 setup.py" fixes that problem. >>>> >>>> Could that policy change? I searched around for a conversation, but >>>> couldn't find anything. Also, the policy itself is undocumented in the >>>> wiki and /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD-python.proto. >>>> >>>> -Aaron DeVore >>>> >>> AFAICR users who relink python to python2 are on their own. This >>> breaks repo packages as well, not just AUR packages. >>> >> >> Correct. This currently breaks all sort of stuff so is completely >> unsupported. >> >> Allan >> > > relinking python is a bad idea, but imho, explicitly envoking python3 > when packaging it not. Yeah, "explicit is better than implicit", so being precise when writing code for an interpreter seems like the good choice to me. (also, it will allow PKGBUILDS to be more portable without breaking anything). With the same kind of policy, users (or packagers) who relink their /usr/bin/python to python should still use python2 (as in PEP 394) for PKGBUILDs, scripts, and such.
