On Mar 02, 2011, at 03:29 PM, 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. There's no need to require that change. In Debian, /usr/bin/python can continue point to python2 for a very long time. I don't have a problem with adding such a symlink, and I think it should be done by Informational PEP, not Standards Track PEP. Since there will be no Python 2.8, our own build system shouldn't ever be changed to add such a link, but we can recommend it for consistency among distros, which would be free to adopt it or not. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20110302/671ee020/attachment.pgp>
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