Proper shebang for python3

[Manfred Lotz]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:21:55 +1000
Cameron Simpson <cs at cskk.id.au> wrote:

> On 21Jul2019 09:31, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 9:15 AM Cameron Simpson <cs at cskk.id.au>
> >wrote: So.... you mean that a tool that depends on running on a
> >consistent environment, it should use a shebang of
> >"/usr/bin/python3.6" instead of "/usr/bin/env python3"?  
> 
> Jeez. No. That is the _opposite_ of what I'm saying.
> 
> >Because, wow, that would be exactly what is
> >already happening on my system. Why use /usr/bin/env and then wrap
> >something around it to force the environment, when you could just set
> >a correct shebang so it properly defines its execution environment?  
> 
> Because the shebang is hardwired and inflexible.
> 
> Because it means hand patching (even scripted) a bazillion scripts to 
> that they know their physical install.
> 
> Because it presumes detailed hardwired knowledge of the target system
> in a script which should work anywhere.
> 
> Instead a tiny _common_ shell script resembling this:
> 
>   #!/bin/sh
>   # Run command in the official environment.
>   exec env - PATH=/path/to/3.6venv/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin exec ${1+"$@"}
> 
> arranges things. The "env -" is aimed at "clean" daemon or install 
> environments.  You can do subtler or less intrusive things in other 
> settings.
> 

I took a look and found that Fedora 30 and Debian Jessie both use
hard-wired paths for python in the rpm resp. deb packages.

I'm being new to Python and I am not acquainted in any way with
virtualenv resp. venv so cannot currently judge its pro and cons.

So I will stick to:
   #!/usr/bin/env python3 

as shebang for my scripts.


-- 
Manfred