Marcin ‘Qrczak’ Kowalczyk writes: > Dnia 03-02-2008, N o godzinie 10:24 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull pisze: > > > I don't see any need to shorten "python3.0" to "python3". > > There is a need. Using #!/usr/bin/python3.0 would break as soon as > python3.1 is released, while #!/usr/bin/python3 would be fine, at > least in the next few years.
First of all, under current policy, installing Python 3.1 would not uninstall or overwrite Python 3.0, so nothing "breaks" when the user uses #!/usr/bin/python3.0. On the contrary, Python 3.1 itself may be buggy. I do not think is it appropriate for the Python installer to make that decision for the user by creating a link to the most recent python3.x. Second, the point here is not whether any given user has such a need. I may disagree with your reasoning above, but you apparently feel such a need, and that's good enough for me. I have no objection if you make a link python3 -> python3.0. What I see no need for is a policy statement *by Python* that there "should" be a "python3" link, or which python3.x is should point to. I don't think that Python providing a simple tool to help the user do it is a good idea, either, because most OS distributions already provide them, and they tend to be rather obnoxious about "rogue" users who do it by hand or use 3d party (including upstream) tools to do it. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com