Re: Python 3 binaries

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:

> Very well. If we do not wish to make the symlink python->python3,
> then we will need special code in patch-shebangs, so that things like
> "#!/usr/bin/python" may get rewritten to
> "#!/nix/store/...python-3.3.2/bin/python3" if no binary named "python"
> is found.

Ah, so packages that work with Python 3 expect a ‘python’ (and not
‘python3’) executable?

Then that’s a different story (I thought ‘python3’ was the official name
for the binary.)

I’d rather not have specific things like that in ‘patch-shebangs’.  So,
what we could do is:

  • Leave ‘python-3’ as is, without the symlink.

  • Add a ‘python-3-wrapper’ package that just contains ‘bin/python’
    pointing to ‘…/bin/python3’ (using ‘trivial-build-system’.)

  • When building Python 3 packages, we’d use the wrapper, not the real
    one; however, users would install the real one in their environment.

WDYT?

Ludo’.