Current version relies on a shebang. How about supporting elf as well?
Are you sure that *actually* python-exec does not support it? The code was designed to be format-agnostic and the tests themselves often use '#!/usr/bin/env true' shebangs... or is this purely about eclass functions?
Sorry wrong title. I meant python_doscript().
@Python, how about adding python_doexe for this? I think that would be less confusing and more resilient to mistakes.
That seems reasonable.
ping to self ;).
Created attachment 372524 [details, diff] python_doexe() patch I'm sorry that I forgot about it. Could you test this patch?
debug: _python_ln_rel: rel_target = ../lib/python-exec/python-exec2 debug: _python_rewrite_shebang: entering function, parameters: /var/tmp/portage/dev-python/scientificpython-2.9.2/image// debug: _python_rewrite_shebang: implementation: python2.7 /var/tmp/portage/dev-python/scientificpython-2.9.2/temp/environment: line 932: read: read error: 0: Is a directory debug: _python_rewrite_shebang: path = /var/tmp/portage/dev-python/scientificpython-2.9.2/image// debug: _python_rewrite_shebang: shebang = * A file does not seem to have a supported shebang: * file: /var/tmp/portage/dev-python/scientificpython-2.9.2/image// * shebang: * ERROR: dev-python/scientificpython-2.9.2::gentoo failed (install phase): * _python_rewrite_shebang: /var/tmp/portage/dev-python/scientificpython-2.9.2/image// does not seem to have a valid shebang *
+ 13 Mar 2014; Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> python-utils-r1.eclass: + Add python_doexe() and python_newexe() to handle implementation-specific + executables without shebangs.
