RetroSearch Browse

Tue Mar 20 15:26:59 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117835.html

On 20/03/2012 14:08, VanL wrote:
> On 3/20/2012 5:48 AM, Mark Hammond wrote:
>> While I'm still unclear on the actual benefits of this, Martin's
>> approach strikes a reasonable compromise so I withdraw my objections.
>
>
> Ok. I was out of town and so could not respond to most of the latest
> discussion.
>
> A question for you Mark, Paul, (and anyone else): Éric correctly points
> out that there are actually two distinct changes proposed here:
>
> 1. Moving the Python binary
> 2. Changing from "Scripts" to "bin"
>
> So far, the primary resistance seems to be to item #1 - moving the
> python binary. There have been a few people who have noted that #2 will
> require some code to change (i.e. Paul), but I don't see lots of
> resistance.

Speaking for myself, I think that's true. At present I tend to
add /scripts to my path and I can just as easily add /bin (for
whatever version I'm running most often on that machine).

TJG

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117835.html below:

[Python-Dev] Python install layout and the PATH on win32