Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> writes:
> Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> writes:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100
>> Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’
>>> executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical
>>> reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing.
>> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python
>> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang.
>> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it.
> Hum, then I don't understand why we aren't applying this argument to
> every interperter (Perl, Guile, ...) which introduce backward
> incompatible changes?
As far as I know, the Python 3 package does not provide the “python”
binary. That’s upstream’s decision.
GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC