RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jul 18 10:03:50 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-July/112323.html

In article 
<CANaWP3zBo8cNWNHN=jxx_m3tUBk3k+vn+LYgqB+yimdTrzVxwA at mail.gmail.com>,
 Kerrick Staley <mail at kerrickstaley.com> wrote:
> Here are my thoughts:
> * For Ned's comments, I agree. Although the issue isn't as large with
> these programs, there's no reason we can't handle them in the same
> way. I updated the PEP.

Thanks.

> Also, I updated the PEP with the clarification that commands like
> python3 should be hard links (because they'll be invoked from code and
> are more efficient; also, hard links are just as flexible as symlinks
> here), while commands like python should be soft links (because this
> makes it clear to sysadmins that they can be "switched", and it's
> needed for flexibility if python3 changes). This really doesn't
> matter, but can we keep it this way unless there are serious
> objections?

I think adding the requirement to mandate hard link vs soft link usage 
is an unnecessary and unwarranted attempt at optimization.  For 
instance, IIRC, the OS X installers don't use any hard links: that may 
complicate the install, plus hard links on OS X HFS* file systems are a 
bit of a kludge and not necessarily more efficient than symlinks.   It's 
not a big deal but perhaps the wording should be changed to make a 
suggestion about hard links vs syminks rather than mandate which should 
be used.

-- 
 Ned Deily,
 nad at acm.org

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-July/112323.html below:

[Python-Dev] [PEPs] Rebooting PEP 394 (aka Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream)