On 20 March 2012 14:08, Lindberg, Van <van.lindb...@haynesboone.com> wrote: > On 3/20/2012 5:48 AM, Mark Hammond wrote: >> While I'm still unclear on the actual benefits of this, Martin's >> approach strikes a reasonable compromise so I withdraw my objections. > > > Ok. I was out of town and so could not respond to most of the latest > discussion. > > A question for you Mark, Paul, (and anyone else): Éric correctly points > out that there are actually two distinct changes proposed here: > > 1. Moving the Python binary > 2. Changing from "Scripts" to "bin" > > So far, the primary resistance seems to be to item #1 - moving the > python binary. There have been a few people who have noted that #2 will > require some code to change (i.e. Paul), but I don't see lots of resistance. > > Am I reading you correctly?
Somewhat. I don't really object to #1, but mildly object to #2. I also note that the proposals round the Lib directory seem to have disappeared. I assume those have been dropped - they were the ones I did object to. I also note that I'm assuming virtualenv will change to match whatever the Python version it's referencing does. I don't see how you can guarantee that, but if there are discrepancies between virtualenvs and installed Pythons, my level of objection goes up a little more. Martin's suggestion of an intermediate registry entry to ease transition doesn't help me. So I don't care about that. See a later message for my comments on PATH as it affects this discussion, though. Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com