Subject: Re: python binary
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <email@example.com>
Date: 10/10/2005 20:08:44
-On [20051010 11:53], Joerg Sonnenberger (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>(a) It depends on PATH. Yes, that's bad. It doesn't work from single
>user environment, it doesn't work from the default cron configuration
Single user mode is only required for maintenance work. This is not a valid
reason for changing this in my opinion.
>(b) It means that changing the installed python version also forces the
>change on all installed packages. It means the administrator can not
>freely choose the version.
Yes, the administrator can freely chose the version, but you need to make
sure that site-packages for the version is populated with the appropriate
packages (part of which is version dependent due to the fact it will be
compiled to bytecode).
>The only reason why scripts with #!/usr/bin/env python (or perl or
>ruby) come up is that the stupid Linux mantra of software working out of
>the box for every broken Linux installation. Guys, patching the script
>as prat of the install stage to get the right interpreter is standard
>behaviour and working perfectly fine.
Your reasoning is flawed and it has nothing to do with the supposed
brokenness of a Linux installation.
The same could be decreed of pkgsrc using /usr/pkg instead of /usr/local
which has been the default for BSD local software since which year?
Also this allows for a lot of flexibility which only depends on PATH
I would vote against this course of action.
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ | http://www.andf.info/
http://www.tendra.org/ | http://www.in-nomine.org/ | email@example.com
About all you can do in life is be who you are. Some people will love you
for you. Most will love you for what you can do for them, and some won't like
you at all.