On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 3:17 PM Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.led...@surgut.co.uk> wrote: > In Bullseye release file:/usr/bin/python is not reserved, but > intentionally unused.
That is not good enough. It needs to be reserved. > In Bullseye release neither deb:python2 nor deb:python3 packages own > /usr/bin/python. Yes, I know. That's fine as long as there is not, **and never will be**, any package within Debian that creates /usr/bin/python as anything other than a link to python2. The existence of the python-is-python3 package breaks this constraint. > No packages in Bullseye may depend, or build-depend on neither > deb:python, nor deb:python-is-python* packages. That is not good enough. The existence of the python-is-python3 package means that there can exist Debian installations in which /usr/bin/python executes python3, breaking **unpackaged** software. Hence the bug report. (A sysadmin could of course `ln -s python3 /usr/bin/python` themselves, but then that would be their error, not a bug in Debian.) > Thus it is a leaf package without any dependencies. By definition not > impacting any unrelated software. I am concerned with this package's effect on **unpackaged** software written by end-users and present on existing Debian systems. I hope you will understand that "unrelated software" does not just mean software within Debian. zw
