On 2011-10-10, Vadim Zhukov <persg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> While working on Qt/KDE bindings (some KDE apps are build upon them, so I
> could not cheat and "forget" them, leaving porting for someone else :) ),
> I've seen many sample scripts that has "#!/usr/bin/env some-interpreter"
> shebangs. They are easily updated via MODXYZ_ADJ_FILES, but do we need
> this at all? The point is that those examples are intended for novice
> programmers and therefore focus on portability for a reason. I fix such
> shebangs for "worker" ones, but not sure about examples/tutorials/samples
> etc.
Please don't perpetuate use of /usr/bin/env, it's safer to specify the
full path. I would rather fix up examples too, particularly if they are
something which might possibly be of interest to actually run rather than
just read..
> Also, is there is a point in creating packages like "python-run",
> containing single symlink to default python as "bin/python" in PLIST and
> such Python version as dependency? I.e.:
>
> PKGNAME=python-run
> MODULES=lang/python
> NO_BUILD=Yes
> do-install:
> ln -sf ${MODPY_BIN} ${PREFIX}/bin/python
I don't like this, ports should use the mechanisms provided in the
infrastructure so that they use the expected version of the interpreter.
If people want to do this for their own programs they can just follow
the advice to create a symlink to their preferred version, but I think
this should be done outside of ports. What would we have, python-run-2.4,
python-run-2.7, python-run-3.1 that people can choose between?
> (And all this definitely should be covered in porting guide...)
Diffs very welcome, these are often better written by people who don't
know so many details..it's easier for us to make adjustments to an
existing diff than to try and work out what things people know.
