> If we ignore the vendor's interpreter then our documentation becomes > MUCH simpler as there will be one -- and preferably only one -- way > to do it: install a Python interpreter that is recent and can run the > full scope of Python applications.
I think I'm almost convinced on this point, save for the problem of /usr/bin/python and the default PATH. > If we make > the proposed PATH change script to the installer, we can ignore the > system Python just as easily as we could if it wasn't there at all. It is extremely difficult (almost impossible) to make such scripts work properly on Unix, with the variety of shells and environments that people use. > There's little good reason for us to petition for its removal, and > there's good reason for them to keep it there: they use it. If they shipped, instead, the current version of MacPython, would that make the issue moot? That is, would you still "insist" on an upgrade before a user could use Python? Could a Mac ever ship with an acceptable pre-installed Python? If not, perhaps the solution for Apple is to move /usr/bin/python to some other spot, like /usr/libexec/, or some such place. Bill _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
