On 02 September 2000, Harry Henry Gebel said:
* have an option to allow "whatever python is first on the path", but make sys.executable the default
I think this is a good option, but I think source RPM compatibility should be the default, and sys.executable should be the option.
OK, we'll flip a coin. *flip* There, I won. Wasn't that easy? >grin< But seriously, does anyone have an opinion here? As I see it, the issue is this: * I create an RPM pair (source & binary) using /usr/bin/python * but the build instructions in the .spec file just say "python setup.py build", not "/usr/bin/python setup.py build" * you build from my source RPM on a machine where the first python in the PATH != /usr/bin/python -- eg. in Andrew's example, /www/python/bin/python, because that's how we setup our development machines at work * my modules get installed somewhere unexpected on your machine You could flip things around and ponder what happens when I build an RPM using /foo/bar/bin/python, but I won't do that because I'm afraid it would negate my argument and obliterate my position. (Hmmm.) The question is, under what circumstances should the .spec file refer to "/usr/bin/python" (ie. sys.executable at the time the .spec file and the RPMs are generated). My hunch is we should make this the default; Harry says this behaviour should be available, but not the default. Inertia and backwards compatibility support Harry's position. Anyone feel strongly one way or the other? Greg -- Greg Ward - Linux geek gward@python.net http://starship.python.net/~gward/ Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!