Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
[Martin v. Löwis, 2011-03-02] I think a PEP would help, but in this case I would request that before the PEP gets written (it can be a really short one!) somebody actually go out and get consensus from a number of important distros. Besides Barry, do we have any representatives of distros here? Matthias Klose represents Debian, Dave Malcolm represents Redhat, and Dirkjan Ochtman represents Gentoo. I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
-On [20110302 01:17], Martin v. Löwis (mar...@v.loewis.de) wrote: Matthias Klose represents Debian, Dave Malcolm represents Redhat, and Dirkjan Ochtman represents Gentoo. With FreeBSD's ports if you install a Python port it will install a pythonX.Y in /usr/local/bin, depending on what is specified with the make variable PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION python will point to that version. So it can refer to either 2.x or 3.x. NetBSD's pkgsrc does not have 3.x in the tree yet. But if no python exists yet, then pkg_alternatives will link it to the version of choice. Not sure what either OpenBSD or DragonFly BSD are doing, but it will be along these lines as well. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B Ain't gonna spend the rest of my Life, quietly fading away... ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] devinabox: Add a script which will build CPython.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:03:50 +0100 brett.cannon python-check...@python.org wrote: + +if sys.platform == 'win32': +print(See the devguide's Getting Set Up guide for building under Windows) Actually, you can also build from the command line under Windows: using Tools/buildbot/build.bat or Tools/buildbot/build-amd64.bat depending on the build you want (but perhaps it's good to teach people to use the MSVC UI, since that's the reference IDE under Windows; besides, these scripts will need MSVN installed anyway). Regards Antoine. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On 01/03/2011 21:19, Kerrick Staley wrote: Hello, There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is defined. Also, all documentation should be changed to recommend that #!/usr/bin/env python2 be used as the shebang for Python 2 scripts. This is needed because some distributions (Arch Linux, in particular), point /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3, while others (including Slackware, Debian, and the BSDs, probably more) do not even define the python2 command. This means that a script has no way of achieving cross-platform compatibility. The point at which many distributions begin to alias /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3 is due soon, and for the next couple of years, it would be best to use a python2 or python3 shebang in all scripts, making no assumptions about plain python, which should only be invoked interactively. This email from about 3 years ago seems relevant: : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html Again, this issue needs to be addressed by the Python developers themselves so that different *nix distributions will handle it consistently, allowing Python scripts to continue to be cross-platform. +1 Note that a PEP will need to address what we do for Windows and Mac OS X. Less of an issue for Windows where we don't put python.exe on the PATH (which we *should*), but we still need to decide whether we will add python2 / python3 binaries. Michael Foord Thanks, Kerrick Staley ___ 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/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:43:27 -0800 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote: But I wouldn't be surprised if some people had regrets about the way the community works (I can recall at least one such case) and it would be useful to learn from those occasions, if they'll let us. And the numbers might tell us something, too. Yes, that's the kind of things that would be good to hear about IMO. It's obvious that in some cases patches and reports go simply unanswered for years, and in these cases a first-time reporter or contributor won't bother again (who would?). But I wonder if there are other social or technical factors, such as the community being too intimidating or not welcoming enough. Actually, if some python-dev readers have something to say about that, they are welcome :) Perhaps a better way than scanning ACKS would be to collect contributor email addresses from the svn logs and note those that haven't contributed in the past 12 months. SVN logs usually don't mention contributor emails (except for committers). Also, it's probably more difficult to extract contributor names from the SVN logs than from the ACKS file. Ok, finding emails might be harder than I initially thought it to be. I hadn't counted the number of lines in ACKS and assumed it was much smaller than that! Regards Antoine. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
Hello, On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:25:00 -0800 Westley Martínez aniko...@gmail.com wrote: If I got a message like that in my mailbox I would be rather annoyed, mark it as spam, and be less likely to contribute again. Yes, I think that's a risk. Do you think of a wording that could alleviate such perception? Thank you Antoine. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
SVN is very bad instrument to contribute or follow an issue patches. And, of course, very long lifecycle of the most issues greatly reduces enthusisasm. On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: Hello, On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:25:00 -0800 Westley Martínez aniko...@gmail.com wrote: If I got a message like that in my mailbox I would be rather annoyed, mark it as spam, and be less likely to contribute again. Yes, I think that's a risk. Do you think of a wording that could alleviate such perception? Thank you Antoine. ___ 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/andrew.svetlov%40gmail.com ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:29:18 +0200 Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com wrote: SVN is very bad instrument to contribute or follow an issue patches. Will Mercurial make things more attractive? And, of course, very long lifecycle of the most issues greatly reduces enthusisasm. True. I believe we are improving that, but perhaps that's a misperception on my part. Thanks Antoine. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) Can you please explain why you NACK this proposed change? Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: Will Mercurial make things more attractive? Definitely yes! I welcome upcoming migration. And, of course, very long lifecycle of the most issues greatly reduces enthusisasm. True. I believe we are improving that, but perhaps that's a misperception on my part. I understand reasons for that situation and really doubt if process can be significantly accelerated. But it just very unconvenient. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
[Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) Can you please explain why you NACK this proposed change? it encourages people to change /usr/bin/python symlink to point to python3.X which I'm strongly against (how can I tell that upstream author meant python3.X and not python2.X without checking the code?) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On 2 March 2011 12:07, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: But I wonder if there are other social or technical factors, such as the community being too intimidating or not welcoming enough. Actually, if some python-dev readers have something to say about that, they are welcome :) From a personal POV, it's the long time it takes for a change to get applied that really discourages me. I know all the reasons why it happens, and I fully appreciate that it's a chicken and egg situation, but nevertheless it's a huge discouragement. As an example (and I'm not picking on anyone here!) my buildbot has been ineffective for some time because it was continually failing on test_ttk_guionly, which simply isn't valid in my setup (buildbot running as a service, so no GUI to test). There was a patch around for quite some time, which I wasn't qualified to judge in detail but which looked OK to me. Recently, Antoine applied it (thanks, Antione!) and it has fixed that issue. Of course, now, my buildbot is failing again, this time with no space on device errors. I suspect that again it's an environmental issue, but I'm not really motivated to try to diagnose it given (a) the likely time it'll take to get any fix applied and (b) it's presumably not a general issue as otherwise I'd see other buildbots failing with the same error. (Personal commitments also mean I have little time to spend on this, which doesn't help...) So I will probably leave it. Sadly, I have no solution to offer, and TBH, this is probably not news to anyone on this list, but I really do believe that this is the main blocker to getting additional contributors involved. Paul. PS My one experience of participating in a bug day was that it was a very encouraging experience of being involved in contribution. So more bug days and/or sprints would definitely be good from this perspective :-) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
The following is going to sound bitter... I was fired with enthusiasm for working on Python after the sprints at EuroPython last year. I submitted 3 (I think) patches for pulldom - a test suite (it has 0% code coverage at present), documentation for the module (there isn't any at present), and a patch deprecating a function that is broken. They're all still open, and the patches are getting staler by the month. The point of this level of detail is: I was new to the project; I submitted some relatively uncomplicated patches that trivially, visibly, and (mostly) uncontroversially improve Python - one of them was a /documentation/ patch. Then nothing happened, apart from the odd comment from people who commented on the tickets - and I responded to their queries. So now I'm of the opinion that it's not worth submitting patches to the Python project at all, because they'll never be accepted. I'll dedicate my time to something else instead. Mercurial /will/ make it easier to contribute code, but if it doesn't get accepted into a release branch, then that makes no real difference to me. Seriously guys - fix the issue lifecycle; I'll come back. --Mark On 2 March 2011 12:54, Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: Will Mercurial make things more attractive? Definitely yes! I welcome upcoming migration. And, of course, very long lifecycle of the most issues greatly reduces enthusisasm. True. I believe we are improving that, but perhaps that's a misperception on my part. I understand reasons for that situation and really doubt if process can be significantly accelerated. But it just very unconvenient. ___ 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/mark.smith%40practicalpoetry.co.uk ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) Can you please explain why you NACK this proposed change? it encourages people to change /usr/bin/python symlink to point to python3.X which I'm strongly against (how can I tell that upstream author meant python3.X and not python2.X without checking the code?) with 'people' do you mean 'users'? if so, isn't this risk already present? If you, user, change the python symlink (provided by python-minimal in Debian) to something else than what's shipped, it's still a local change, and will never be supported; but with python2 *Debian is free* to decide if python can be pointed to python3, if the time will come. Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] devguide (hg_transition): Update instructions to use the new server-side clone button
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: A remark: Having all clones created under a dedicated namespace (say sandbox) could make the hg.python.org listing clearer, since all user clones would be grouped. Sure, we can change the enforced convention depending on the majority's preference. I chose that one because other devs thought it would be bad to let people create many repos at the top-level. Having user clones flagged by the two-level names should be more than enough when it comes to what the server enforces. That way we can be flexible about additional namespaces (although using sandbox by convention should cover most use cases). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
[Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) Can you please explain why you NACK this proposed change? it encourages people to change /usr/bin/python symlink to point to python3.X which I'm strongly against (how can I tell that upstream author meant python3.X and not python2.X without checking the code?) with 'people' do you mean 'users'? if so, isn't this risk already present? users already break their systems via sudo ez_install ... (note the sudo part!), I meant developers (distro and upstream authors). If a programmer develops a script in Python 3 on Arch and later ships his file with /usr/bin/python in shebang, it's very likely that this script will not work on all distributions that didn't (yet?) change the symlink. If you, user, change the python symlink (provided by python-minimal in Debian) to something else than what's shipped, it's still a local change, and will never be supported; but with python2 *Debian is free* to decide if python can be pointed to python3, if the time will come. ... and make other distributions developers' life miserable? -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) Can you please explain why you NACK this proposed change? it encourages people to change /usr/bin/python symlink to point to python3.X which I'm strongly against (how can I tell that upstream author meant python3.X and not python2.X without checking the code?) with 'people' do you mean 'users'? if so, isn't this risk already present? If you, user, change the python symlink (provided by python-minimal in Debian) to something else than what's shipped, it's still a local change, and will never be supported; but with python2 *Debian is free* to decide if python can be pointed to python3, if the time will come. I suspect he's saying it'd be better if the time didn't come (if so, I'd agree). Python3 *is* unfortunately a new and incompatible programming language, it makes sense for it to have it have its own interpreter name. Eventually /usr/bin/python might no longer be installed, but that doesn't mean python3 shouldn't simply be called python3 forever. James ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
Hello, Defensive programming will force you to do things like : import sys if sys.version[0] == '2': ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On 03/03/11 00:03, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowskipi...@debian.org wrote: [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowskipi...@debian.org wrote: I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) Can you please explain why you NACK this proposed change? it encourages people to change /usr/bin/python symlink to point to python3.X which I'm strongly against (how can I tell that upstream author meant python3.X and not python2.X without checking the code?) with 'people' do you mean 'users'? if so, isn't this risk already present? users already break their systems via sudo ez_install ... (note the sudo part!), I meant developers (distro and upstream authors). If a programmer develops a script in Python 3 on Arch and later ships his file with /usr/bin/python in shebang, it's very likely that this script will not work on all distributions that didn't (yet?) change the symlink. If you, user, change the python symlink (provided by python-minimal in Debian) to something else than what's shipped, it's still a local change, and will never be supported; but with python2 *Debian is free* to decide if python can be pointed to python3, if the time will come. ... and make other distributions developers' life miserable? But is that not the whole point of adding the /usr/bin/python2 symlink. That way a developer can explicitly use a /usr/bin/python2 or /usr/bin/python3 shebang and have it portable everywhere. At the moment, Debian seems to be the major hold-up on that actually being a reality being the only major distro I could find that does not provide such a symlink. Note also that even restricting /usr/bin/python to point at a python-2.x binary gives no guarantee on what actual python-2.x version you are getting, so it is not as if guaranteeing portability is not a problem already... Allan ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On 02/03/2011 14:04, James Y Knight wrote: On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowskipi...@debian.org wrote: [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowskipi...@debian.org wrote: I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) Can you please explain why you NACK this proposed change? it encourages people to change /usr/bin/python symlink to point to python3.X which I'm strongly against (how can I tell that upstream author meant python3.X and not python2.X without checking the code?) with 'people' do you mean 'users'? if so, isn't this risk already present? If you, user, change the python symlink (provided by python-minimal in Debian) to something else than what's shipped, it's still a local change, and will never be supported; but with python2 *Debian is free* to decide if python can be pointed to python3, if the time will come. I suspect he's saying it'd be better if the time didn't come (if so, I'd agree). Python3 *is* unfortunately a new and incompatible programming language, Only partly true. It's a new version of an existing language that introduces backwards incompatible changes. It *isn't* a new language and I write code that happily runs under Python 2 (2.4+) and 3. Michael it makes sense for it to have it have its own interpreter name. Eventually /usr/bin/python might no longer be installed, but that doesn't mean python3 shouldn't simply be called python3 forever. James ___ 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/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
[Allan McRae, 2011-03-02] But is that not the whole point of adding the /usr/bin/python2 symlink. That way a developer can explicitly use a /usr/bin/python2 or /usr/bin/python3 shebang and have it portable everywhere. At the moment, Debian seems to be the major hold-up on that actually being a reality being the only major distro I could find that does not provide such a symlink. Do you realize how many (still perfectly usable) scripts written in Python 2.x few years ago (and not modified since then) are out there? Do you realize how much work would it require to fix every single one of them to point to /usr/bin/python2 instead? Even if we'd start checking mdate and change it at build time automatically, there still will be way too many false positives... for no clear gain. -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On 03/03/11 00:29, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Allan McRae, 2011-03-02] But is that not the whole point of adding the /usr/bin/python2 symlink. That way a developer can explicitly use a /usr/bin/python2 or /usr/bin/python3 shebang and have it portable everywhere. At the moment, Debian seems to be the major hold-up on that actually being a reality being the only major distro I could find that does not provide such a symlink. Do you realize how many (still perfectly usable) scripts written in Python 2.x few years ago (and not modified since then) are out there? Do you realize how much work would it require to fix every single one of them to point to /usr/bin/python2 instead? Even if we'd start checking mdate and change it at build time automatically, there still will be way too many false positives... for no clear gain. Having made the packages using python-2.x code from an entire distribution point at /usr/bin/python2, I have a fair idea of how much work is involved... And that is exactly why changes need made now so that time is available for transition. Providing the /usr/bin/python2 symlink now means that any future code would be able to point to it rather than some unversioned python binary. That way in ?? years when python-3.x is the python and python-2.x is obsolete, and it is decided that /usr/bin/python will be python-3.x (which I believe is the only logical outcome), then everyone will be a lot more prepared. Allan ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 13:08 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote: Hello, On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:25:00 -0800 Westley Martínez aniko...@gmail.com wrote: If I got a message like that in my mailbox I would be rather annoyed, mark it as spam, and be less likely to contribute again. Yes, I think that's a risk. Do you think of a wording that could alleviate such perception? Thank you Antoine. ___ 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/anikom15%40gmail.com No. Python is a voluntary effort; I think it would be in the best interest to keep it as such. If there's a fundamental flaw in the way the community does something, it will heal itself. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:43:27 -0800 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote: But I wouldn't be surprised if some people had regrets about the way the community works (I can recall at least one such case) and it would be useful to learn from those occasions, if they'll let us. And the numbers might tell us something, too. Yes, that's the kind of things that would be good to hear about IMO. It's obvious that in some cases patches and reports go simply unanswered for years, and in these cases a first-time reporter or contributor won't bother again (who would?). But I wonder if there are other social or technical factors, such as the community being too intimidating or not welcoming enough. Actually, if some python-dev readers have something to say about that, they are welcome :) FWIW, Here's some feedback I got from the community awhile ago - not all of the respondents are ex contributors, but rather this is a general why don't you contribute question. I've still not had the time to internalize it, other then to pester Brett to work on the dev docs. http://jessenoller.com/2010/04/22/why-arent-you-contributing-to-python/ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1285897 http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/burio/why_arent_you_contributing_to_python/ It's worth a good read-through. I got a lot of private emails all in the same tone. Speed of turn around, push back from entrenched developers turning off new contributors, etc. Jesse ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:43:27 -0800 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote: But I wouldn't be surprised if some people had regrets about the way the community works (I can recall at least one such case) and it would be useful to learn from those occasions, if they'll let us. And the numbers might tell us something, too. Yes, that's the kind of things that would be good to hear about IMO. It's obvious that in some cases patches and reports go simply unanswered for years, and in these cases a first-time reporter or contributor won't bother again (who would?). But I wonder if there are other social or technical factors, such as the community being too intimidating or not welcoming enough. Actually, if some python-dev readers have something to say about that, they are welcome :) FWIW, Here's some feedback I got from the community awhile ago - not all of the respondents are ex contributors, but rather this is a general why don't you contribute question. I've still not had the time to internalize it, other then to pester Brett to work on the dev docs. http://jessenoller.com/2010/04/22/why-arent-you-contributing-to-python/ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1285897 http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/burio/why_arent_you_contributing_to_python/ It's worth a good read-through. I got a lot of private emails all in the same tone. Speed of turn around, push back from entrenched developers turning off new contributors, etc. Jesse Let me point out, in a positive light, that the feedback from the above is what triggered me to drive the PSF Sprints project (http://pythonsprints.com/) at the board/PSF level. ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 2, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Allan McRae wrote: That way in ?? years when python-3.x is the python and python-2.x is obsolete, and it is decided that /usr/bin/python will be python-3.x (which I believe is the only logical outcome), But that's not the only logical outcome. A perfectly logical outcome is that /usr/bin/python disappears completely if python2.X isn't installed, and python3 is always called python3. That is the outcome I find sensible. And that is the crux of the disagreement in this thread. Those who think python3.X should stay /usr/bin/python3 forever do not see any reason to make everyone rewrite their existing python scripts to say /usr/bin/python2 instead of /usr/bin/python. So, there's no point in adding a /usr/bin/python2 now. Scripts that want python2 can remain using /usr/bin/python forever, and that will either be installed, or not installed, depending on whether that OS has a copy of python2.X. Those who think python3 should (eventually someday, or maybe immediately, depending) be named or have an alias of /usr/bin/python want to make everyone rewrite their scripts to say /usr/bin/python2 now. For that position, it's unfortunate that python source doesn't install itself with an alias of /usr/bin/python2, and some distros don't install that alias either. So they want to fix that. James ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
[Allan McRae, 2011-03-02] Having made the packages using python-2.x code from an entire distribution point at /usr/bin/python2, I have a fair idea of how much work is involved... * is every Arch package that uses Python 2.X already working with /usr/bin/python and why not? ;-) * how many Python packages do Arch have in the first place and why so little? ;-) * how does Arch deal with scripts that are not packaged, what do you say to users who report bugs against your packages because their local scripts do not work anymore? :-| -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
It seems that there are two kinds of developers (ok, it's over-generalized) : 1- the ones that have a problem with python and file bugs into the issue trackers : they don't try to search for solutions, they want core-developers to check and correct their bugs. The motivation for these developers are that they have a problem to solve. They do a great job finding tricky problems. 2- the ones that try to reproduce bugs filed into the issue tracker, that try to create patches : the motivation for these developers are that they love python, they love to solve problems and learn about the python language details. These are generally the ones that participate to events like hackathons, bug days... IMHO, what python misses the most are developers of the second category. A solution would be to organize and promote this second category of developers in order to grow their number. Jérôme. 2011/3/2 Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:43:27 -0800 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote: But I wouldn't be surprised if some people had regrets about the way the community works (I can recall at least one such case) and it would be useful to learn from those occasions, if they'll let us. And the numbers might tell us something, too. Yes, that's the kind of things that would be good to hear about IMO. It's obvious that in some cases patches and reports go simply unanswered for years, and in these cases a first-time reporter or contributor won't bother again (who would?). But I wonder if there are other social or technical factors, such as the community being too intimidating or not welcoming enough. Actually, if some python-dev readers have something to say about that, they are welcome :) FWIW, Here's some feedback I got from the community awhile ago - not all of the respondents are ex contributors, but rather this is a general why don't you contribute question. I've still not had the time to internalize it, other then to pester Brett to work on the dev docs. http://jessenoller.com/2010/04/22/why-arent-you-contributing-to-python/ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1285897 http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/burio/why_arent_you_contributing_to_python/ It's worth a good read-through. I got a lot of private emails all in the same tone. Speed of turn around, push back from entrenched developers turning off new contributors, etc. Jesse Let me point out, in a positive light, that the feedback from the above is what triggered me to drive the PSF Sprints project (http://pythonsprints.com/) at the board/PSF level. ___ 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/jerome.radix%40gmail.com ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Mark Smith mark.sm...@practicalpoetry.co.uk wrote: The following is going to sound bitter... I was fired with enthusiasm for working on Python after the sprints at EuroPython last year. I submitted 3 (I think) patches for pulldom - a test suite (it has 0% code coverage at present), documentation for the module (there isn't any at present), and a patch deprecating a function that is broken. They're all still open, and the patches are getting staler by the month. The point of this level of detail is: I was new to the project; I submitted some relatively uncomplicated patches that trivially, visibly, and (mostly) uncontroversially improve Python - one of them was a /documentation/ patch. Then nothing happened, apart from the odd comment from people who commented on the tickets - and I responded to their queries. So now I'm of the opinion that it's not worth submitting patches to the Python project at all, because they'll never be accepted. I'll dedicate my time to something else instead. Mercurial /will/ make it easier to contribute code, but if it doesn't get accepted into a release branch, then that makes no real difference to me. Seriously guys - fix the issue lifecycle; I'll come back. I think a key point in your experience there is that contributing on orphaned modules can be *really* hard, because it is difficult to find a committer that feels qualified to accept it. That's a serious chicken-and-egg problem, because someone needs to contribute in order for the existing core developers to gain confidence in their abilities, but if the components they're interested in are comparatively unmaintained, their contributions may not be accepted due to a lack of a capable reviewer... I know there's a patch that has been sitting on the tracker for ages that gave the mimetools module some love, and was generally a positive change, but needed someone with the expertise to really pick it apart and figure out which elements were acceptable from a backwards compatibility point of view, and which needed to be dropped and/or turned into feature requests. I was able to highlight a few problem areas, but it really needed a fresh set of eyes that was more familiar with mimetools than I am, but also more familiar with the standard library development life cycle than the patch contributor. In contrast, particularly with the triage folks on the tracker doing such good work, patches to actively maintained modules are far more likely to get some decent consideration from the relevant maintainer. There have been a few cases of folks being granted commit access to work on previously orphaned modules (e.g. Lars with tarfile), but I'm not sure what we can do about that problem more generally. So perhaps a question we should be focusing on is how we might go about getting better module coverage in the first table at http://docs.python.org/devguide/experts Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: I know there's a patch that has been sitting on the tracker for ages that gave the mimetools module some love s/mimetools/mimetypes/ Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
/tangent Does this discussion remind anyone else of the bash/dash switch for /usr/bin/sh in Ubuntu? The distro itself coped fine, but 3rd party shell scripts that used bash extensions were a whole different story. (No, I'm not sure what lessons, if any, we can draw from that. It just struck me as an interesting parallel worth mentioning) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] contributors survey?
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:10:04 +, Mark Smith mark.sm...@practicalpoetry.co.uk wrote: The following is going to sound bitter... I was fired with enthusiasm for working on Python after the sprints at EuroPython last year. I submitted 3 (I think) patches for pulldom - a test suite (it has 0% code coverage at present), documentation for the module (there isn't any at present), and a patch deprecating a function that is broken. They're all still open, and the patches are getting staler by the month. The point of this level of detail is: I was new to the project; I submitted some relatively uncomplicated patches that trivially, visibly, and (mostly) uncontroversially improve Python - one of them was a /documentation/ patch. Then nothing happened, apart from the odd comment from people who commented on the tickets - and I responded to their queries. So now I'm of the opinion that it's not worth submitting patches to the Python project at all, because they'll never be accepted. I'll dedicate my time to something else instead. Mercurial /will/ make it easier to contribute code, but if it doesn't get accepted into a release branch, then that makes no real difference to me. Seriously guys - fix the issue lifecycle; I'll come back. After running a core sprint at PyOhio I realized that one thing that is *seriously* needed is more followup after a sprint (and probably after bug days as well). I didn't gather the information at the sprint that I would have needed to do that followup (who exactly did submit patches during the sprint and which patches?). I'd like to suggest that we collect such information one way or another for the PyCon sprint, and pay special attention to those patches in the weeks following PyCon. The other issue with the pulldom patches, Mark, is that unfortunately you fell into one of the black holes: I don't think there are any active committers who know much, if anything, about pulldom. As with everything else, it comes down to lack of people hours. People pay attention to what interests them, and some attention to other stuff, and there aren't enough people for that some attention to other stuff to cover all the patches that are submitted. There are probably ways to improve patch lifecycle management, but I don't think there is any *fix* other than more people. So, doing followup after sprints/bug days to help keep contributor enthusiasm going and get some of them converted into committers is perhaps the best fix we could apply. Of course, doing that followup requires people-time... -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:13:59 -0500, James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net wrote: On Mar 2, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Allan McRae wrote: That way in ?? years when python-3.x is the python and python-2.x is obsolete, and it is decided that /usr/bin/python will be python-3.x (which I believe is the only logical outcome), But that's not the only logical outcome. A perfectly logical outcome is that /usr/bin/python disappears completely if python2.X isn't installed, and python3 is always called python3. That is the outcome I find sensible. And that is the crux of the disagreement in this thread. Well, I personally won't use a distribution that makes this choice. For whatever that's worth :) But, even if a distribution *does* make that choice, if it wants to be compatible with code developed on distributions that make the other choice, it should provide a /usr/bin/python2 symlink. Otherwise, it is going to be getting bug reports from users asking why XYZ script doesn't run. In short, I don't see any *downside* to providing a /usr/bin/python2 symlink. -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 02, 2011, at 03:29 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Allan McRae, 2011-03-02] But is that not the whole point of adding the /usr/bin/python2 symlink. That way a developer can explicitly use a /usr/bin/python2 or /usr/bin/python3 shebang and have it portable everywhere. At the moment, Debian seems to be the major hold-up on that actually being a reality being the only major distro I could find that does not provide such a symlink. Do you realize how many (still perfectly usable) scripts written in Python 2.x few years ago (and not modified since then) are out there? Do you realize how much work would it require to fix every single one of them to point to /usr/bin/python2 instead? Even if we'd start checking mdate and change it at build time automatically, there still will be way too many false positives... for no clear gain. There's no need to require that change. In Debian, /usr/bin/python can continue point to python2 for a very long time. I don't have a problem with adding such a symlink, and I think it should be done by Informational PEP, not Standards Track PEP. Since there will be no Python 2.8, our own build system shouldn't ever be changed to add such a link, but we can recommend it for consistency among distros, which would be free to adopt it or not. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02] On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski pi...@debian.org wrote: I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess only accepted PEP can change that) Can you please explain why you NACK this proposed change? it encourages people to change /usr/bin/python symlink to point to python3.X which I'm strongly against (how can I tell that upstream author meant python3.X and not python2.X without checking the code?) But the same is already true for python2.X vs. python2.Y. Explicit is better than implicit etc. Plus, 5 years from now everybody is going to be annoyed that python still refers to some ancient unused version of Python. If it takes a PEP to change your position, let's write the PEP. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
Jérôme Radix wrote: Hello, Defensive programming will force you to do things like : import sys if sys.version[0] == '2': Really? Do you already do this? if sys.version '2.2': result = apply(func, arguments) else: result = func(*arguments) And if so, have you tested it in Python 1.5 to see what happens? -- Steven ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 2, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: I don't have a problem with adding such a symlink, and I think it should be done by Informational PEP, not Standards Track PEP. Since there will be no Python 2.8, our own build system shouldn't ever be changed to add such a link, but we can recommend it for consistency among distros, which would be free to adopt it or not. Why not? 2.7 is supposed to be in long term maintenance mode. Surely if it's a good idea for everyone else to ship a python2 binary, 2.7.next should also install it when building from source... James ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:42 AM, R. David Murray wrote: Well, I personally won't use a distribution that makes this choice. For whatever that's worth :) This ***shouldn't*** be a choice distros have to make. There should be a standard upstream recommended way to install python, and that's also what make install should do. That distros are having to make a choice here is a problem in communication from python core developers -- it sucks that we've gotten this far without consensus on a proper transition plan for moving from Python 2.X to Python 3.X. James ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
James Y Knight wrote: I suspect he's saying it'd be better if the time didn't come (if so, I'd agree). Python3 *is* unfortunately a new and incompatible programming language, it makes sense for it to have it have its own interpreter name. Oh come on, there's like three incompatibilities versus three thousand things that are compatible. A pox on your discontinuous mind! *wink* Seriously, most of the changes are library changes, not language changes. The similarities far outweigh the differences. I don't think there is a generally agreed upon objective boundary between dialect and language, but to my mind the change between 2.x and 3.x falls squarely under dialect. In the same way, I don't care that William Shakespeare's everyday speech would be nearly incomprehensible to my ears, and mine to his, we both speak (spoke?) English. In my opinion, the biggest change from Python 2 - 3 is that we actually provide developers tools for migrating scripts rather than leave it for them to deal with the changes themselves. I recently ported a client's application written for 2.3 that used string exceptions everywhere to 2.6. I would have loved a 2.3to2.6 fixer :) I don't consider 2.3 and 2.6 to be different languages, and I suspect neither do you, even though code that runs fine without even a warning under one raises a SyntaxError under the other. Every time we drop or rename a module from the standard library, we break scripts. Such backwards incompatibility is not enough to delineate different languages. Even syntax changes are not necessarily enough. Eventually /usr/bin/python might no longer be installed, but that doesn't mean python3 shouldn't simply be called python3 forever. I already call Python 3 python in casual conversation. There is *no way* that I will be calling it python3 in fifteen years time, when Python 2.7 is as dead and forgotten as Python 1.5 is now, just to satisfy some overly strict definition of different language. -- Steven ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 02, 2011, at 02:49 PM, James Y Knight wrote: On Mar 2, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: I don't have a problem with adding such a symlink, and I think it should be done by Informational PEP, not Standards Track PEP. Since there will be no Python 2.8, our own build system shouldn't ever be changed to add such a link, but we can recommend it for consistency among distros, which would be free to adopt it or not. Why not? 2.7 is supposed to be in long term maintenance mode. Surely if it's a good idea for everyone else to ship a python2 binary, 2.7.next should also install it when building from source... Seems like it's straying into new feature territory to me, but then I'm not the 2.7 RM. OTOH, if it really does help Python 3 adoption, it might be worth it. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
Steven D'Aprano wrote: Jérôme Radix wrote: Hello, Defensive programming will force you to do things like : import sys if sys.version[0] == '2': Really? Do you already do this? if sys.version '2.2': result = apply(func, arguments) else: result = func(*arguments) And if so, have you tested it in Python 1.5 to see what happens? Sorry, that reads harsher than I intended. Please insert a wink and a smiley. -- Steven ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
Am 02.03.2011 20:49, schrieb James Y Knight: On Mar 2, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: I don't have a problem with adding such a symlink, and I think it should be done by Informational PEP, not Standards Track PEP. Since there will be no Python 2.8, our own build system shouldn't ever be changed to add such a link, but we can recommend it for consistency among distros, which would be free to adopt it or not. Why not? 2.7 is supposed to be in long term maintenance mode. Surely if it's a good idea for everyone else to ship a python2 binary, 2.7.next should also install it when building from source... I agree with Barry that this would be a new feature, and, by default, cannot be added to the 2.7 release which is in maintenance mode. IMO, an accepted PEP could override the policy, though. Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 2, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Am 02.03.2011 20:49, schrieb James Y Knight: On Mar 2, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: I don't have a problem with adding such a symlink, and I think it should be done by Informational PEP, not Standards Track PEP. Since there will be no Python 2.8, our own build system shouldn't ever be changed to add such a link, but we can recommend it for consistency among distros, which would be free to adopt it or not. Why not? 2.7 is supposed to be in long term maintenance mode. Surely if it's a good idea for everyone else to ship a python2 binary, 2.7.next should also install it when building from source... I agree with Barry that this would be a new feature, and, by default, cannot be added to the 2.7 release which is in maintenance mode. IMO, an accepted PEP could override the policy, though. That sounds like an entirely reasonable position to take. All the more reason for someone who's in favor of python3 being called python in the future to write the PEP outlining how to ease the transition by providing a python2 link now. James ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
No, I don't do it now. But taking like granted the fact that 2.x python will be dead in 5 years and that /usr/bin/python will point to python3 is, imho, a little too optimistic. Thus, as time passes, python scripts will have to guess if they are running through python3 or python2 because the two will be installed on most systems, with no strict convention on how to run a 2.x python script or a 3.x python script. /usr/bin/python is meant to point to python3 one time or another. The time will never be the same for all distros. And, yes, people are already testing python version in their scriptshttp://www.google.com/search?q=python+version+test+site%3Astackoverflow.comie=utf-8 . As a matter of fact, they've already had this kind of discussion for Perl : they use require http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/require.html. Jérôme. 2011/3/2 Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info Steven D'Aprano wrote: Jérôme Radix wrote: Hello, Defensive programming will force you to do things like : import sys if sys.version[0] == '2': Really? Do you already do this? if sys.version '2.2': result = apply(func, arguments) else: result = func(*arguments) And if so, have you tested it in Python 1.5 to see what happens? Sorry, that reads harsher than I intended. Please insert a wink and a smiley. -- Steven ___ 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/jerome.radix%40gmail.com ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
Am 02.03.2011 23:36, schrieb Jérôme Radix: No, I don't do it now. But taking like granted the fact that 2.x python will be dead in 5 years and that /usr/bin/python will point to python3 is, imho, a little too optimistic. I don't think Steven said, or assumed, a scope of 5 years - more like a scope of 30 years. In 30 years, Python 2 will surely be dead (as will likely be Python 3). The defensive programming you promote is likely to fail. Many Python 2 scripts are syntactically invalid when interpreted as Python 3, so a version test won't even be executed. With separate python2 and python3 executables, people can have scripts depend on the right binary. In interactive mode, I would like to use /usr/bin/python be the current Python binary always (even when Python 4.6 comes along). Python will, interactively, greet me with its version number, and I can adjust. So the idea of /usr/bin/python being reserved for Python 2 strikes me as inconvenient. Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 16:20 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Allan McRae, 2011-03-02] Having made the packages using python-2.x code from an entire distribution point at /usr/bin/python2, I have a fair idea of how much work is involved... * is every Arch package that uses Python 2.X already working with /usr/bin/python and why not? ;-) * how many Python packages do Arch have in the first place and why so little? ;-) * how does Arch deal with scripts that are not packaged, what do you say to users who report bugs against your packages because their local scripts do not work anymore? :-| Is that a silver spoon in your mouth? ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote: Am 02.03.2011 23:36, schrieb Jérôme Radix: No, I don't do it now. But taking like granted the fact that 2.x python will be dead in 5 years and that /usr/bin/python will point to python3 is, imho, a little too optimistic. I don't think Steven said, or assumed, a scope of 5 years - more like a scope of 30 years. In 30 years, Python 2 will surely be dead (as will likely be Python 3). The defensive programming you promote is likely to fail. Many Python 2 scripts are syntactically invalid when interpreted as Python 3, so a version test won't even be executed. With separate python2 and python3 executables, people can have scripts depend on the right binary. In interactive mode, I would like to use /usr/bin/python be the current Python binary always (even when Python 4.6 comes along). Python will, interactively, greet me with its version number, and I can adjust. So the idea of /usr/bin/python being reserved for Python 2 strikes me as inconvenient. +1 on all that. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
The point is that there never has to be an agreement about the python command, as long as all distros support python2/python3 and all scripts use it (I think that the distinction should continue to be made if/when python2 becomes uncommon, otherwise we'll hit the same issue with python4). We don't have to force anyone to change the python command itself. That being said, I feel that the python command should only be invoked from an interactive terminal, and in fact it would be good if distros would use the python2/python3 convention in their own packages, so that the sysadmin can point python to wherever he wants, and when he types python into a terminal get the version he wants. As an added plus, should a distro supporting this feature decide to make the Python 2 - Python 3 switch, it would be an effortless process. Again, however, force this requirement shouldn't be forced on distros. As an aside, this whole thing started when I tried installing ROShttp://www.ros.org/wiki/, only to find that it made assumptions about /usr/bin/python, which points to python3 on my Arch Linux system. I went in search of documentation for the python2/python3 convention so that I could make the ROS developers aware of it and help them to follow it, only to find out that no such convention actually exists. Since ROS uses a rather complicated python-based installer that makes assumptions about /usr/bin/python not only in the shebangs of many files but also in other places (apparently in connection with the subprocess module), it has proven thus far unworkable unless I change /usr/bin/python back to Python 2, a move that could potentially break many other aspects of my system. I'm sure there are many other users out there that are frustrated by similar issues; supporting a python2/python3 convention on all distros as well as in scripts would solve these issues without creating further problems and without the need for a slow consensus to be reached on what /usr/bin/python should be. Here is a draft PEP (forgive me if it's incorrectly formatted; I've never done this before). I think it's a little long winded given how simple the idea it proposes is, but I thought it would be better to be more specific than necessary rather than less. . PEP: ??? Title: The python Command on Unix-Like Systems Version: ??? Last-Modified: ??? Author: Kerrick Staley mail at kerrickstaley.com Status: Draft Type: Informational Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 02-Mar-2011 Post-History: ??? Abstract == This PEP provides a convention to ensure that Python scripts can continue to be portable across *nix systems, regardless of the default version of the Python interpreter (i.e. the version invoked by the python command). Recommendation * ``*nix`` software distributions should install the command python2 into the default path whenever a version of the Python 2 interpreter is installed, and the same for python3 and the Python 3 interpreter. When invoked, python2 should run some version of the Python 2 interpreter, and python3 should run some version of the Python 3 interpreter. * All new code that needs to invoke the Python interpreter should specify either python2 or python3, according to the version it requires, but not python. This distinction should be made in shebangs, when invoking from a shell script, when invoking via the system() call, or when invoking in any other context. Rationale === This is needed because some distributions alias the python command to Python 3, while others alias it to Python 2. Some distributions also do not provide a python2 command; hence, there is no way for Python 2 code (or any code that invokes the Python 2 interpreter) to reliably run on all systems without modification, because both the python and the python2 commands will fail on some systems. The recommendations in this PEP provide a very simple mechanism to restore cross-platform support, with very little additional work required on the part of distribution maintainers. Notes === * Distributions can alias the python command to whichever version of the Python interpreter they choose. * It would be wise for distributions to always follow the convention that this PEP recommends, even in code that is not intended to operate on other distributions. This will make it easier if the code ever needs to be ported to another distribution or if the distribution decides to change the version of the Python interpreter that the python command invokes. Distributions can test whether they are fully following this convention by switching the python interpreter and seeing if anything breaks. * If the above point is adhered to, then the python command should always be a link to the interpreter binary (or a link to a link) and not vice versa. That way, if users decide to change where the python command points, they can do so without inadvertently deleting the binary. * The first recommendation can be ignored for systems on which the python
Re: [Python-Dev] Support the /usr/bin/python2 symlink upstream
On Mar 2, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote: As an aside, this whole thing started when I tried installing ROS, only to find that it made assumptions about /usr/bin/python, which points to python3 on my Arch Linux system. Yep, exactly that kind of problem is why I think it's an absolutely terrible idea to switch the /usr/bin/python link to point to python3 (ever). When python 2.x is dead, I really don't see what the problem is with only having a python3 binary, and no python binary. That said, since the conclusion here is that it *IS* a good idea to point python to a python3 interpreter eventually, I guess it's better to add the python2 link 4 years late than never. A lot of pain could've been spared if python 2.x had started installing python2 years ago, so by now everyone would depend on it existing. But oh well, too late for that, unless someone has a time machine handy. I went in search of documentation for the python2/python3 convention so that I could make the ROS developers aware of it and help them to follow it, only to find out that no such convention actually exists. I'm sure there are many other users out there that are frustrated by similar issues; Well, so far, only those unfortunate users of Arch Linux...but considering the consensus here, I'm sure there will be more in the future. supporting a python2/python3 convention on all distros as well as in scripts would solve these issues without creating further problems and without the need for a slow consensus to be reached on what /usr/bin/python should be. Well, it will definitely will create problems: scripts may start using the python2 name to be compatible with Arch Linux (or anyone else who sets python-python3), but the python2 link won't exist on any existing from-source Python install, or OSX, or Debian, or Ubuntu. And it likely will not start existing on some of those systems for years to come, even if the PEP is accepted today. Perhaps that problem is considered less of a problem than the problem Arch Linux users have today (as you point out, sysadmins can create the link themselves), but it still is a problem. As to the PEP itself: you should specify an action item that the Python 2.7.N upstream makefile be modified to install a python2 symlink, as well. James___ 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
