`port select python` and qtwebengine

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 2, 2019, at 12:06, Joshua Root wrote:

> On 2019-6-3 01:59 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> As a side note, as I understand it, it is a user error to make "python" a symlink to Python 3; it should always be Python 2. Going forward, use a "python2" symlink for Python 2 and use a "python3" symlink for Python 3.
>> 
>> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/51572
> 
> That isn't actually what PEP 394 says:
> 
>> * for the time being, all distributions should ensure that python, if installed, refers to the same target as python2, *unless the user deliberately overrides this* or a virtual environment is active.
> 
> (my emphasis)

Ah, ok. I hadn't read it. I had only read our ticket, in which Jeremy said it was "not supported" and which I took to mean it wasn't a good idea for the user to do this.


On Jun 2, 2019, at 13:49, René J.V. Bertin wrote:

> Ryan Schmidt wrote on 20190602::10:59:47 re: "Re: `port select python` and qtwebengine"
>> As a side note, as I understand it, it is a user error to make "python" a symlink to Python 3; it should always be Python 2. Going forward, use a "python2" symlink for Python 2 and use a "python3" symlink for Python 3.
> 
> If that's so then there is no need for a "complex" python wrapper (but the idea could be useful for other similar interpreters, perl maybe?).

I'm not seeing a need for that right now.


> However, the person who reported the error to me claimed he only used `port select` and didn't create the symlink himself. I didn't push him to know how nor did I try myself, but if indeed `port select` allows this calling it a "user error" is a bit unjust. You cannot expect every user to know that plain `python` should resolve to a v2 interpreter (I also didn't), and `port select` shouldn't be able to break that rule.

From my point of view, yes, MacPorts allows the user to commit this error, and we should fix MacPorts to prevent such an error, or at least warn the user about it, hence the ticket whose URL I mentioned earlier.


> Is there even a point in maintaining port:python26?

Sure.