fix site-packages parameter for focal fossa

[crazymind1337]

Pull Request (PR) description

On Ubuntu 20.04 there is no parameter --no-site-packages for virtualenv binary anymore. The --system-site-packages stays the same.

This Pull Request (PR) fixes the following issues

Fixes '--no-site-packages' parameter on Ubuntu Focal Fossa

root@6e6956e915f1:/# grep -i focal /etc/os-release 
VERSION="20.04 LTS (Focal Fossa)"
VERSION_CODENAME=focal
UBUNTU_CODENAME=focal

root@6e6956e915f1:/# virtualenv --version
virtualenv 20.0.17 from /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/virtualenv/__init__.py

root@6e6956e915f1:/# virtualenv --help | grep 'no-site-packages'
root@6e6956e915f1:/# 

root@6e6956e915f1:/# virtualenv --help | grep '^[\ -]*system-site-packages'
  --system-site-packages        give the virtual environment access to the system site-packages dir (default: False)

[igalic]

and this doesn't affect any other Debian type OS?

[crazymind1337]

and this doesn't affect any other Debian type OS?

Ah you are right. Just did check for our needs. I will check also for other OSes later this day. Thanks for reminding!

[crazymind1337]

@igalic I checked other supported OSes (using latest docker container). At Debian the virtualenv binary is not used and on latest CentOS virtualenv does still have the --no-site-packages option.

[saz]

I've missed this PR and made a new one: #552

I think it doesn't make sense to check for any OS version, as --no-site-packages is deprecated since a long time.
(see https://virtualenv.pypa.io/en/16.7.9/reference.html)
The default has changed to not use site-packages anyways, so we don't need to be explicit here.

[crazymind1337]

I've missed this PR and made a new one: #552

I think it doesn't make sense to check for any OS version, as --no-site-packages is deprecated since a long time.
(see https://virtualenv.pypa.io/en/16.7.9/reference.html)
The default has changed to not use site-packages anyways, so we don't need to be explicit here.

So i can close this one?

[saz]

@crazymind1337 Good question.

@igalic What do you think?

[igalic]

i think we've accumulated a lot more feedback on what the best approach to solving this issue is in @saz's pr, so let's keep going there