On 04/03/2011 13:21, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Michael Foord > <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote: >> Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows? > Any platform that considers itself "unix-like" in this context can > decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin and the *nix-y > aspects of OS X). The main point of the PEP is to get a consensus > recommendation out of python-dev as to the best way forward (and I > think Kerrick did a good job of summarising the position that has been > expressed in this thread). > Right, but the pep doesn't address those issues for some fairly major platforms. > More generally, Windows and Mac OS X developers seem to be happier > with the idea of bundling a Python interpreter inside the application > than traditional *nix style platforms. This is a PITA for the system > maintainer when it comes time to handle security vulnerabilites, but > certainly more convenient when upgrading the default Python install. > However on Mac OS X at least *scripts* have the same issue (what to put in the shebang line). >> Note that we *do* have alternative distributors [1] of Python for these >> platforms who may wish to follow any recommendations we have for 2.7, even >> if we don't modify those installers for our own distributions. > The really tricky part on Windows is handling file associations. I > think we're just doomed on that front, unless we want to start > supporting separate .py2 and .py3 extensions (and adding *that* in a > maintenance release would be a far cry from just adding another > symlink). > > The lack of near-universal symlink support on Windows filesystems is > also an issue - we would have to duplicate files like python.exe and > pythonw.exe on non-NTFS filesystems in order to provide them under > alternative names. > > For *nix, I think there is a simple way forward that is an improvement > over where things stand now. For Windows, I don't think we can do much > better than the status quo and for Mac OS X... I think Apple will do > whatever Apple feel like doing :) > Right, but on Mac OS X we do put a "python3" on the path but not a "python2". We also create "python2.x" and "python3.x" variants. So the same issues exist yet the pep On Windows we only have a "python.exe" I believe, but if the user does put their Python installs on the path then we *could* usefully create "python2.exe" and "python3.exe" for them. I don't see that duplicating these binaries on the filesystem is an issue. File associations is just unsolvable on Windows, so it isn't something we can address or should worry about. (Actually a stub python.exe that looks at the shebang line and then delegates to the appropriate pythonX.Y.exe would be a possibility but I'm not volunteering to write it.) All the best, Michael > Cheers, > Nick. > -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
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