On Sat, 18 Apr 2020, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > > > On Sat, 18 Apr 2020, Jed Brown wrote: > > > >> This indicates that /usr/bin/python will not exist in the next release. > >> > >> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/2Removal > >> > >> I don't know what exactly that means. I'd guess it means one will need > >> to use backports to get python2 if one really needs it; even so, I don't > >> know if /usr/bin/python will exist. Perhaps only /usr/bin/python2. > >> > >> > >> I don't know if they'll reintroduce /usr/bin/python at some release well > >> in the future, but we should expect for it to not exist for a while. > >> > > > > The above URL is about packaging guidelines. i.e the packages in the distro > > should correctly use python2 or python3 dependencies. > > > > I don't see a mention of /usr/bin/python will be. [so yes - so we don't > > know what it will be - when python3 becomes the default] > > >From the page: > > make sure package doesn't call python at build- or compile time (as there > won't be a python package and no python command in bullseye, only python3.)
Sure this makes sense for building distro packages - so that they have correct dependencies. But its not indicative of user install not having /usr/bin/python. Satish > > > But until then - I don't consider missing /usr/bin/python a transition. > > jedbrown/mpich-ccache would be an example of user willfully not installing > > the default system python. (similar to not installing system default > > compilers). So don't think its a case of configure bug of not handling > > proper installs. [sure we have work-around for buggy compilers and some > > buggy installs so any support for missing /usr/bin/python would be on that > > side]. > > > > I wonder what python folk recommendation here is wrt dual use scripts.. > > > > Satish >