A few months ago I asked for symlinks for ipython (see bug 496010). In my opinion pip would be another great candidate for these symlinks.
I've had a short discussion on IRC - looks like some prefer using virtualenv instead of calling pip directly. Therefore they don't see a need for these symlinks. I don't use virtualenv but set those requested links manually for my users. The downside is that one has to maintain these links if python targets change. But the same goes for virtualenv. I still think this would be a good idea. Any further comments?
11 Apr 2014; Jan Matejka <yac@gentoo.org> +pip-1.5.4-r1.ebuild: Add convenience symlinks, fixes BGO#506834
Please do not reinvent the wheel when the upstream build system is perfectly capable of installing proper extra names itself. In fact, we're applying a patch to disable that... and then doing the same thing ourselves now. I'm just not sure if we should let it install extra 'pip2' and 'pip3' as it does now.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #3) > Please do not reinvent the wheel when the upstream build system is perfectly > capable of installing proper extra names itself. In fact, we're applying a > patch to disable that... and then doing the same thing ourselves now. Ok, I haven't noticed that. Will fix it at night or maybe tomorrow. > I'm just not sure if we should let it install extra 'pip2' and 'pip3' as it > does now. Is there a reason not to?
(In reply to Jan Matějka from comment #4) > > I'm just not sure if we should let it install extra 'pip2' and 'pip3' as it > > does now. > > Is there a reason not to? Does pip2 have a #!/usr/bin/python2 shebang? Or does it end up pointing at a script with a more specific shebang? I ask because if we install them, I think users might expect them to be updated by eselect python. Or maybe not. ^_^
(In reply to Mike Gilbert from comment #5) > (In reply to Jan Matějka from comment #4) > > > I'm just not sure if we should let it install extra 'pip2' and 'pip3' as it > > > does now. > > > > Is there a reason not to? > > Does pip2 have a #!/usr/bin/python2 shebang? Or does it end up pointing at a > script with a more specific shebang? They all get wrapped by python-exec. So 'pip2' runs with 2.6, 2.7 or pypy depending on EPYTHON, and 'pip3' runs with 3.2, 3.3 or 3.4. It's just like 'pip' but with limited impls.
Fixed in 1.5.5. If someone cares that pip2/pip3 are installed feel free to bring back part of the old patch.
