Escalated to Bugzilla from IssueTracker
Event posted on 09-08-2009 11:54am EDT by kbaxley There's a project underway in Fedora 12 to finally resolve the issues with Red Hat including #!/usr/bin/env python in our python executables: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemPythonExecutablesUseSystemPython There's also a Fedora bug opened on this, and comments in there state that this is a big priority for RHEL6: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518994 For RHEL5, we've been instructed by Product Management to open bugs on a package-by-package basis to address the problem. In this case, postgresql-python in RHEL5 has at least one instance of a python script containing #!/usr/bin/env python. /usr/share/doc/postgresql-python-8.1.11/tutorial/advanced.py in postgresql-python-8.1.11-1.el5_1.1 /usr/share/doc/postgresql-python-8.1.11/tutorial/basics.py in postgresql-python-8.1.11-1.el5_1.1 /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/pg.py in postgresql-python-8.1.11-1.el5_1.1 This event sent from IssueTracker by kbaxley [LLNL (HPC)] issue 339885
Event posted on 09-08-2009 11:57am EDT by kbaxley also... /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/pgdb.py in postgresql-python-8.1.11-1.el5_1.1 This event sent from IssueTracker by kbaxley issue 339885
As far as I saw, the conclusions about this in the recent fedora-packaging discussion were (a) the issue is not clear enough to have a system-wide mandate, and (b) the form with env is mildly preferred anyhow. Please explain why I should not close this NOTABUG.
As far as I can see, the discussion here rejected any standardization in this area: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-July/msg00056.html If there's been further discussion, or somebody has decided that Python deserves a special rule, please say where that took place. My take on it is that if someone has gone so far as to install a private version of python, it's probably because they want to *use* that version of python.
Please note also that the Features page you cite is no better than draft status --- it has no owner, is zero percent complete (which at this point means it ain't happening in F-12), and based on the aforesaid mailing list discussion it's not clear it has any community consensus behind it anyway.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?".
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Closing as WONTFIX: given the lack of consensus on whether this is even a good idea, I can't see that we'll change these scripts in RHEL5.