Hello Nicolas,
you wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:50:13PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Paul Boddie<p...@boddie.org.uk>, 2011-11-12, 15:08:
c) I renamed "Nuitka.py" to a "nuitka" binary. I am keeping the
drop-in replacement as "Python" though.
I don't think it's wise to call it "Python",
Agreed, this is bad idea.
+1
What's wrong with calling nuitka, nuitka ? I do not remember PyPy,
Stackless, Jython, IronPython or any other alternative Python
interpreters trying to install their executable under the name
/usr/bin/python, so why would you want to do it in this case ?
For the record, the package installs "/usr/bin/Python" which uses
"/usr/bin/python" in its "#!" line.
I just got accustomed to it, you know like when you develop something
over years, and cannot think of anything else.
The "/usr/bin/nuitka" binary is not that one, "Python" is intended to be
a "behave alike python just be faster in a cached way". And "nuitka"
shall be the "do one of many things" binary.
I might remove it from the Debian package, or put it to
"/usr/share/doc/nuitka/examples" and then mention it in a "README.Debian".
The "Python" does not accept "python" alike options anyway yet, it's not
finished if you wish.
I absolutely don't want "Python" to block the entry of "nuitka" to
Debian proper. Oh collective Debian-Python Brainpower, tell me a good
name but "nuitka" for said binary. :-)
PS: Thank you for working on Nuitka, it looks really interesting.
Thanks a lot too.
Kay
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec2eeec.6020...@gmx.de