Yes I used those as examples of fixes that were made, many packages seem to deserve a similar treatment.
docker run -it --rm osrf/ros:noetic-desktop-full
root@330a6aa5201e:/opt/ros/noetic/lib# cd /opt/ros/noetic/lib
root@330a6aa5201e:/opt/ros/noetic/lib# grep -r "env python$" | wc -l
126
Here are some example of other packages needing to be patched:
class_loader/pull/158
common_tutorials/pull/26
geometry2/pull/466
geometry/pull/212
pluginlib/pull/197
qt_gui_core/pull/223
ros_controllers/pull/495
rqt_bag/pull/48
rqt_dep/pull/12
rqt_launch/pull/24
rqt_moveit/pull/7
rqt_msg/pull/10
rqt_nav_view/pull/6
rqt_pose_view/pull/7
rqt_publisher/pull/20
rqt_py_console/pull/9
rqt_reconfigure/pull/84
rqt_robot_monitor/pull/21
rqt_robot_steering/pull/9
rqt_runtime_monitor/pull/6
rqt_rviz/pull/14
rqt_service_caller/pull/16
rqt_shell/pull/12
rqt_srv/pull/5
rqt_tf_tree/pull/21
rqt_top/pull/9
rqt_topic/pull/18
rqt_web/pull/4
The PR on dynamic_reconfigure is here
My point here was more that this seems to be a pretty widespread issue, also present in packages maintained by core maintainers. As these maintainers are the most likely to follow the guidelines closely, it seems likely that future packages being released will face the same issue.
So I was wondering if there could be a way to give more visibility to the issue and give early feedback to releasers that their packages may have a problem before it hits the main repo.