* bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’
@ 2018-02-12 16:52 Mathieu Lirzin
2018-02-12 17:23 ` Danny Milosavljevic
[not found] ` <handler.30437.D30437.151846208124209.notifdone@debbugs.gnu.org>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Lirzin @ 2018-02-12 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 30437
Hello,
I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
Thanks for considering it.
--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’
2018-02-12 16:52 bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’ Mathieu Lirzin
@ 2018-02-12 17:23 ` Danny Milosavljevic
2018-02-12 18:29 ` Efraim Flashner
2018-02-12 19:38 ` Mathieu Lirzin
[not found] ` <handler.30437.D30437.151846208124209.notifdone@debbugs.gnu.org>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Danny Milosavljevic @ 2018-02-12 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mathieu Lirzin; +Cc: 30437
Hi Mathieu,
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> wrote:
> I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
> executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
> reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python 2.
A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’
2018-02-12 17:23 ` Danny Milosavljevic
@ 2018-02-12 18:29 ` Efraim Flashner
2018-02-12 19:00 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-02-12 19:38 ` Mathieu Lirzin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Efraim Flashner @ 2018-02-12 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Danny Milosavljevic; +Cc: 30437, Mathieu Lirzin
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 927 bytes --]
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:23:07PM +0100, Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
> > executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
> > reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
>
> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python 2.
>
> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
>
> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.
>
We do also have the 'python-wrapper' package which uses python3 as
python
--
Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’
2018-02-12 18:29 ` Efraim Flashner
@ 2018-02-12 19:00 ` Ricardo Wurmus
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2018-02-12 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 30437-done
Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:23:07PM +0100, Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
>> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
>> > executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
>> > reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
>>
>> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python 2.
>>
>> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
>>
>> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.
>>
>
> We do also have the 'python-wrapper' package which uses python3 as
> python
Closing because it’s not a bug.
--
Ricardo
GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’
2018-02-12 17:23 ` Danny Milosavljevic
2018-02-12 18:29 ` Efraim Flashner
@ 2018-02-12 19:38 ` Mathieu Lirzin
2018-02-12 23:14 ` Ricardo Wurmus
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Lirzin @ 2018-02-12 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Danny Milosavljevic; +Cc: 30437
Hi,
Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
>> executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
>> reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
>
> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python 2.
>
> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
>
> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.
Hum, then I don't understand why we aren't applying this argument to
every interperter (Perl, Guile, ...) which introduce backward
incompatible changes?
--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#30437: closed (Re: bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’)
[not found] ` <handler.30437.D30437.151846208124209.notifdone@debbugs.gnu.org>
@ 2018-02-12 19:55 ` Mathieu Lirzin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Lirzin @ 2018-02-12 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 30437
help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) writes:
> From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
> Subject: Re: bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’
> To: 30437-done@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:00:57 +0100 (38 minutes, 1 second ago)
> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.3.1
>
>
> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:23:07PM +0100, Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
>>> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
>>> > executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
>>> > reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
>>>
>>> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python 2.
>>>
>>> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
>>>
>>> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.
>>>
>>
>> We do also have the 'python-wrapper' package which uses python3 as
>> python
It is nice to have a ‘python-wrapper’ package as a workaround, but this
doesn't explain why the ‘python’ package shouldn't do it automatically.
Doing so would be far more convenient for casual users.
> Closing because it’s not a bug.
IMHO that was a bit quick to close. I still consider this as a wishlist
bug.
--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’
2018-02-12 19:38 ` Mathieu Lirzin
@ 2018-02-12 23:14 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-02-13 0:45 ` Mathieu Lirzin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2018-02-12 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mathieu Lirzin; +Cc: 30437
Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
>> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
>>> executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
>>> reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
>>
>> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python 2.
>>
>> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
>>
>> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.
>
> Hum, then I don't understand why we aren't applying this argument to
> every interperter (Perl, Guile, ...) which introduce backward
> incompatible changes?
As far as I know, the Python 3 package does not provide the “python”
binary. That’s upstream’s decision.
--
Ricardo
GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’
2018-02-12 23:14 ` Ricardo Wurmus
@ 2018-02-13 0:45 ` Mathieu Lirzin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Lirzin @ 2018-02-13 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ricardo Wurmus; +Cc: 30437
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
>>> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
>>>> executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
>>>> reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
>>>
>>> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python 2.
>>>
>>> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
>>>
>>> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.
>>
>> Hum, then I don't understand why we aren't applying this argument to
>> every interperter (Perl, Guile, ...) which introduce backward
>> incompatible changes?
>
> As far as I know, the Python 3 package does not provide the “python”
> binary. That’s upstream’s decision.
Indeed your are right, they provide no configure option to enable such
thing as they don't encourage downstream to use ‘python’ as an alias to
‘python3’ yet. After some research this is discussed in PEP-0394. [1]
As a consequence it seems reasonable for Guix to not deviate from
upstream recommandation, even if the shebang issue described by PEP-0394
are mitigated by the functional package management paradigm.
Thanks.
[1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/
--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-02-13 0:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-02-12 16:52 bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’ Mathieu Lirzin
2018-02-12 17:23 ` Danny Milosavljevic
2018-02-12 18:29 ` Efraim Flashner
2018-02-12 19:00 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-02-12 19:38 ` Mathieu Lirzin
2018-02-12 23:14 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-02-13 0:45 ` Mathieu Lirzin
[not found] ` <handler.30437.D30437.151846208124209.notifdone@debbugs.gnu.org>
2018-02-12 19:55 ` bug#30437: closed (Re: bug#30437: No “.guix-profile/bin/python” after ‘guix package -i python’) Mathieu Lirzin
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).