> But the previous consensus (at least, as I, and presumably many other > people understood it) was that python2 would remain the owner of the > name "/usr/bin/python" for the indefinite future, and python3 would > be invoked with /usr/bin/python3. Can you cite references for that (not that other people agree, but that this was consensus)? I couldn't find any summary report of the 2009 language summit, and, despite having been present there, I don't recall that aspect even being discussed. Instead, I recall that a decision was made (and I'm not sure whether with consensus or not) that "make install" would install /usr/bin/python3, for the time being. Period. So I don't recall a decision that there shouldn't be a python2 binary, nor a decision that anything is done indefinitely (it may be that the decision was actually just about 3.1 - changing it again for 3.2 would require another decision, but certainly can't be ruled out categorically). Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4