Re: [PATCH 1/5] debian/control: build-depend on python3-sphinx instead of python-sphinx

[Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>]

On Mon, Dec 04 2017, Tomi Ollila wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 04 2017, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
>> On Sun 2017-12-03 15:35:04 +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 30 2017, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> hm, on further reflection, this one is specifically problematic because
>>>> of the use of:
>>>>
>>>>     ${python} -m sphinx.writers.manpage
>>>>
>>>> in ./configure, used to test for the presence of the sphinx module.
>>>>
>>>> This can be fixed by preferring python3 here:
>>>>
>>>> --- a/configure
>>>> +++ b/configure
>>>> @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ fi
>>>>  printf "Checking for python... "
>>>>  have_python=0
>>>>  
>>>> -for name in ${PYTHON} python python2 python3; do
>>>> +for name in ${PYTHON} python3 python python2; do
>>>
>>>>      if command -v $name > /dev/null; then
>>>>         have_python=1
>>>>         python=$name
>>>>
>>>> any thoughts or preferences on this?
>>>
>>> I'd like this change. I was going to suggest "${PYTHON}" there
>>> but perhaps if one sets e.g.
>>>
>>> PYTHON='/usr/local/bin/python3 -B -E -u'
>>>
>>> The above would still work (I'd say this is potentially more useful
>>> than supporting whitespace in paths).
>>
>> does it work?  i think the -B -E -u will all be tried as possible python
>> implementations separately, no?  and $python itself will just get set to
>> /usr/local/bin/python3 with the arguments dropped :(
>
> Ahh, you're right. Alternative would be to check whether "${PYTHON-}" is
> a nonempty string and use that...

Now that I said it, I'm compelled to write an example. Simpler
alternative is to just have what you Daniel first wrote...

.. so I'm, fine with original  for name in ${PYTHON} python3 python python2; do


have_python=0

if test "${PYTHON-}"; then
    name=${PYTHON%%[$IFS]*}
    if command -v $name > /dev/null; then
        have_python=1
        python=$name
    fi
fi
if [ $have_python -eq 0 ]; then
    for name in python3 python python2; do
        if command -v $name > /dev/null; then
            have_python=1
            python=$name
        fi
    done
fi

>
> Tomi
>
>>
>> 0 dkg@alice:~$ x="a b c"
>> 0 dkg@alice:~$ for y in ${x} d e; do printf ':%s\n' "$y"; done
>> :a
>> :b
>> :c
>> :d
>> :e
>> 0 dkg@alice:~$ 
>>
>> While i think this doesn't support Tomi's extended use case, i still
>> think it's the right direction to move in.
>>
>> Does anyone have any objection to the preference order change above?  Is
>> there any reason we should be preferring python 2 to python3 as we move
>> forward?
>>
>>         --dkg