On Sep 2, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > Just to add my $0.02 for completeness: > > I think the standard installers put a "python2.4" as well as "python" > in usr/local/bin. If they don't, they should, and until then, you can > put in a link yourself:
Of course the standard installers make this link. What they are missing (the framework ones anyway) is a link for pydoc, and all of them are missing a versioned pydoc binary. This matters less now, because python2.4 -mpydoc <name> works just fine, and python2.4 `which pydoc` <name> also works fine (for versions of python earlier than 2.4, also). > I really wish specifying the version would become standard practice in > python development. That cuts both ways, for a lot of scripts you don't give a damn which python it is and changing the hash-bang every time you upgrade is a pain. If you use distutils to install your scripts, your job is done. It translates #!/usr/bin/env python to #!/usr/local/bin/python2.4 or whatever is the appropriate way to point to the exact same python that was used for distutils. -bob _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
