| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Right now we have two different ways of 'wrapping' Python scripts |
| 5 |
> 'converted' for various Python implementations. One of them |
| 6 |
> is the wrapper script installed by python.eclass, the other symlinking |
| 7 |
> done by python-distutils-ng.eclass. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I would like to ask you which one do you consider better, and thus |
| 10 |
> which one should I use for python-r1/distutils-r1. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Of the choices, the wrapper idea (option 1) would be my preference. |
| 14 |
Functionality-wise, it is closest to what we have with the generated |
| 15 |
wrappers. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The symlink option sucks given the way eselect python works. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Another problem with option 3 (generic shebangs) is how to decide |
| 20 |
which version of the script should be the one installed with a generic |
| 21 |
shebang. It is possible that a package may run 2to3 as one of the |
| 22 |
installation steps, which would mean that you would not have a script |
| 23 |
that would work in both python2 and python3. |
Archives