On Mon, Feb 12 2018, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:56:36PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> On Fri 2018-02-09 12:46:24 -0800, W. Trevor King wrote: >> > From later on in PEP 394 [1]: >> > >> > It is anticipated that there will eventually come a time where >> > the third party ecosystem surrounding Python 3 is sufficiently >> > mature for this recommendation to be updated to suggest that the >> > python symlink refer to python3 rather than python2. >> > >> > And from right up at the beginning [2]: >> > >> > however, end users should be aware that python refers to python3 >> > on at least Arch Linux (that change is what prompted the >> > creation of this PEP), so python should be used in the shebang >> > line only for scripts that are source compatible with both >> > Python 2 and 3. >> > >> > On my Gentoo system, I've also selected Python 3 to back ‘python’. >> > So I think your solution should be “add a /usr/bin/python symlink >> > to your python3”, not “claim that nmbug is only compatible with >> > Python 3”. >> >> Presumably you still have /usr/bin/python3 in addition to >> /usr/bin/python as well. So the one thing i think we're both >> agreeing on is that we use nmbug with python 3. > > Yup. But I'm not sure that is the case for all nmbug users. > >> It looks to me like you're asking me to change my operating system >> to accomodate your naming preference. > > No, I'm asking you to change your operating system to accommodate PEP > 394's naming preferences. As PEP 394 points out, Arch made the switch > to using ‘python’ for ‘python3’ long ago. You'd just be following > their lead. > >> I'm asking that we put the onus on developers who really insist on >> using nmbug with python 2.7 maintain their own local patch against >> nmbug, rather than other developers either modifying their local >> operating system in potentially disastrous ways (/usr/bin/python as >> python3 would cause severe breakage for at least one python2-only >> tool i rely on daily, sadly)… > > That Python-2-only tool should be using python2 in its shebang. This > is exactly the sort of issue that PEP 394 was created to address. > Once you patch that tool to follow PEP 394, you should have no problem > adjusting your system to also follow PEP 394. > >> … or carrying their own local patch against nmbug. > > A shebang with ‘python’ should work with everyone (and it's what PEP > 394 recommends for scripts that work with both Python major versions). > The only folks who would need a local patch would be folks with > systems like your current plan that contain no ‘python’ command at > all. I see no upside to such systems, while I do see upsides to > systems with just a ‘python2’ (and a ‘python’ alias for it) or just a > ‘python3’ (and a ‘python’ alias for it). > >> i'll drop this request now because i don't understand the origin of >> the strength of your reaction, and already wish i'd spent the time >> i've lost on it on something more productive :( I hope if you change >> your mind you'll come back and recommend it here. > > I like nmbug and have put some time into it. But I'm not the notmuch > maintainer, and as you point out, nmbug would still work for me with a > python3 shebang. So if the maintainers want to switch to python3 it's > no skin off my back. They can always wait and field requests from any > python2-only users if/when those users file complaints (which may be > never). Thank you both for interesting read. Based on these I cannot say which way this should go (personally I prefer faster conversion to python3 but perhaps that is not good readson to put python3 in hashbang). In this case I value Trevor as valid notmuch maintainer as anyone else who has done significant work for nmbug. Tomi > > Cheers, > Trevor > > -- > This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). > For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch