On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:06 -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I wonder if it might not be a terrible idea to have /usr/bin/python2 and > /usr/bin/python3 ? I don't know enough about Python, but if the > incompatibilities are similar in scope the incompatibilities that > existed between perl4 and perl5, then having a link that points to the > latest minor release within a given major release might be useful.
I don't think they are "compatible enough" for that. If someone needs it for something so simple that it doesn't matter which 2.x version is running then they can probably equally use 3.0. Laca > James Carlson wrote: > > Laszlo (Laca) Peter writes: > > > >> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, James Carlson wrote: > >> > >>> I'm a little puzzled by that. Why would /usr/bin/python give me the > >>> latest version of Python 2.x in particular, rather than just the > >>> latest version of Python in general? > >>> > >> Python 3.0 is very new and not widely adopted yet. > >> > > > > OK. I'll assume that /usr/bin/python though *will* (in the indefinite > > future) become 3.0, and that it's not actually defined for users in > > terms of 2.x. > > > > Making it the "newest commonly usable version" or some such should > > resolve the issue. > > > > With that, +1. > > > > > >>> Why does history end at the end of 2.x? > >>> > >>> Why would I want the latest of a slowly dying major release? > >>> > >> Many of the modules that you may be looking for are not yet available > >> for 3.0. I expect that most people looking for "any version of python" > >> are really looking for a 2.x release. > >> > > > > Understood; it was the _definition_ of the link in specific terms of > > 2.x that seemed puzzling, as I don't think that history ends there. > > > > >
