On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 10:51 +0200, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: > On 6 July 2010 10:19, Isaac Dupree <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 07/06/10 01:57, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: > >> > >> Hello Allan, > >> I know that I'm just a regular user but I'd like to express my opinion > >> too. I think the transition should be done when most modules and > >> applications support Python 3. I'd not be surprised if the transition > >> of majority of modules would take several years. By that time there > >> may be a way how to do a dual rename. > > > > Hi Lukas, > > Can you present a technical reason against doing the renaming now? Because > > as far as I can see, Allan has worked out the kinks and it will actually not > > harm you as a regular user at all... > > > > (unless you write personal scripts in python that you want to work with > > #!something on multiple distros? (then you probably want to run them in > > python version 2) .. I'm not sure I can think of an easy way to do that; > > maybe for each distro you use you could put a symlink in > > /usr/local/bin/python2 for example.) > > > > -Isaac > > > > Hi Isaac, > I don't write Python scripts but yeah, I think this is a real problem. > The other problem is that there are not many users of python 3 out > there. > > In a more subjective way I think whenever something is set as default > it should be the one which has most users (in both terms of people and > software). > > Lukas
As another user (who doesn't write Python), I'd state that 'majority usage' is a pretty poor guideline for users of a Linux distro, and a relatively small one at that. I'm all for the option which reduces workload on the packagers. Of course if things break big-time then it may be a problem, but that's what [testing] is for, and those of us using it should know what to do if/when breakage occurs.
