Re: Denying #!/usr/bin/env as a valid interpreter

["OBATA Akio" <obache%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:18:23 +0900, J?rn Clausen 
<joernc%googlemail.com@localhost> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost> 
> wrote:
> > Each time I upgrade pkgsrc, I get annoyed by developer laziness to check
> > any new files for a valid python interpreter. This is because
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/env python
> >
> > Is the recommended way of calling python by upstream and
> > check-interpreter.mk allows it just because /usr/bin/env exists.
> > Sadly, no binary called python exists on pkgsrc - it's python2.6 for
> > example.
>
> Isn't pkgsrc to blame by not providing a binary called "python"? The
> /usr/bin/env approach is IMHO a valid method. It has it's drawbacks
> and in certain situations I would avoid it, in others I would strongly
> prefer it.

Do you know there is no /usr/bin/env for some platforms?
It may be /bin/env, or /sbin/env, or something else.

How about on platforms with multiple `python' commands?

> How about providing a link "python -> python26" for the default
> version (as defined by PYTHON_VERSION_DEFAULT)? The same goes for e.g.
> Java. Why is java not called "java", but e.g. "sun6-java"? It would
> make things much easier to have a default version available under the
> name "java". You could still have other versions installed under their
> original names.

You can install pkgtools/pkg_alternatives.
But it will create shell script wrapper, so you cannot use it in shebang.

--
OBATA Akio / obache%NetBSD.org@localhost