On 03/03/11 00:29, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Allan McRae, 2011-03-02] >> But is that not the whole point of adding the /usr/bin/python2 symlink. >> That way a developer can explicitly use a /usr/bin/python2 or >> /usr/bin/python3 shebang and have it portable everywhere. At the moment, >> Debian seems to be the major hold-up on that actually being a reality >> being the only major distro I could find that does not provide such a >> symlink. > > Do you realize how many (still perfectly usable) scripts written in > Python 2.x few years ago (and not modified since then) are out there? > Do you realize how much work would it require to fix every single one > of them to point to /usr/bin/python2 instead? Even if we'd start checking > mdate and change it at build time automatically, there still will be way > too many false positives... for no clear gain. Having made the packages using python-2.x code from an entire distribution point at /usr/bin/python2, I have a fair idea of how much work is involved... And that is exactly why changes need made now so that time is available for transition. Providing the /usr/bin/python2 symlink now means that any future code would be able to point to it rather than some unversioned python binary. That way in ?? years when python-3.x is "the" python and python-2.x is obsolete, and it is decided that /usr/bin/python will be python-3.x (which I believe is the only logical outcome), then everyone will be a lot more prepared. Allan
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