Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008 5:52 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This discussion of what to install Python 3.0 as reminded me that we've >> already encountered this problem before. As I recall, when Python 2.0 >> was released Red Hat steadfastly refused to ship it with their then >> current >> version of Linux. It wasn't until the next RH product came out that they >> shipped Python 2.x, and then the executable was called (I think) python2. >> >> I no longer remember the details very well, but I wonder if there's >> a lesson to be learned from that experience as we decide how to install >> Python 3.0. > > IMO the lesson to be learned is that that was a bad idea -- other > vendors have not followed suit. It also gave Python a bad name because > for years, typing "python" on Red Hat systems gave you an ancient > version. >
That was unfortunate. What they should have done, IMO, is install python as a link to the latest version. Where they had tools that had not been ported, those tools should have explicitly said #!/usr/bin/python1.5. Would be even nicer if python could say: require python_version >= x.y or some such. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
