On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
OK. I think that convinces me it's widely enough spread we ought to fix this
for Wheezy. I'll take it up with the release managers as it's their
decision, not mine.
Bug filed:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 09:53:41PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Lachlan lachlan...@gmail.com writes:
i'm not an expert by any means but i fail to see how this is an issue?
In short: Debian is not the only Unix-like system
On Sep 15, 2013, at 01:24 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
I mean that generally it is hard to say what problems people face when
trying to make the code running on both Python 3 and Python 2. My own
experience shows that testing both is very burdensome no matter if you
port app or start from
On Sep 15, 2013, at 06:05 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
And *once that happens*, we can discuss resurrecting /usr/bin/python and
pointing it to python3. It should not change until then.
Python 2.7 will have an upstream lifetime of many years even from now. The
current thinking (I wouldn't even
On Sep 16, 2013, at 10:16 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
As a Python developer I couldn't care less for the default Python
stuff as long as my scripts use proper shebang. python for 2/3
compatible stuff, python2 for 2.x only and python3 where needed.
If you're distributing software intended to be
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
The only suggestion I can make is that it's generally not that hard for new
code to make it work for both python2.7 and python3.3.
I do not agree.
--
anatoly t.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:55 PM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
The only suggestion I can make is that it's generally not that hard for new
code to make it work for both python2.7 and python3.3.
I do
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 1:24 PM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:55 PM, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com
wrote:
The only suggestion I can make is that it's generally not
i'm not an expert by any means but i fail to see how this is an issue?
-Everyone wrote scripts for python 2.x using /usr/bin/python
-With python3, scripts were written specifically for python3 using
/usr/bin/python3
When Debian eventually changes to python3 by default all the scripts will
be
Lachlan lachlan...@gmail.com writes:
i'm not an expert by any means but i fail to see how this is an issue?
In short: Debian is not the only Unix-like system where Python is
installed, and consistency across operating systems is valuable.
-Everyone wrote scripts for python 2.x using
On 15 September 2013 07:53, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Lachlan lachlan...@gmail.com writes:
Not all of them, and the expectation is that more and more systems will
assume “/usr/bin/python” is the current version of Python.
I haven't seen any evidence that anyone except Arch
Scott, I booted up a CentOS 6.4 VM, and the symlink is there (runs
python2.6). I'd be interested to know if there are any other systems where
it's unavailable though.
- Kerrick
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.comwrote:
Kerrick Staley
Kerrick Staley kerr...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
Scott, I booted up a CentOS 6.4 VM, and the symlink is there (runs
python2.6). I'd be interested to know if there are any other systems
where
it's unavailable though.
OK. I think that convinces me it's widely enough spread we ought to fix this
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 14:34:27 Scott Kitterman wrote:
Kerrick Staley kerr...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
Scott, I booted up a CentOS 6.4 VM, and the symlink is there (runs
python2.6). I'd be interested to know if there are any other systems
where
it's unavailable though.
OK. I think
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 09:53:41PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Lachlan lachlan...@gmail.com writes:
i'm not an expert by any means but i fail to see how this is an issue?
In short: Debian is not the only Unix-like system where Python is
installed, and consistency across operating systems is
Thanks!
The upstream recommendation (from PEP 394 [1]) is that, going forward,
portable scripts *can't* assume python is python2, and *should* use
python2.
- Kerrick
[1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/
Kerrick Staley kerr...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
Thanks!
The upstream recommendation (from PEP 394 [1]) is that, going forward,
portable scripts *can't* assume python is python2, and *should* use
python2.
- Kerrick
[1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/
I'm very familiar with it.
Now
What's not included in some newer releases here? /usr/bin/python2 has
been present on all systems I've used except Debian.
- Kerrick
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.comwrote:
Kerrick Staley kerr...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
Thanks!
The upstream
Kerrick Staley kerr...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
What's not included in some newer releases here? /usr/bin/python2 has
been present on all systems I've used except Debian.
- Kerrick
It looks to me like the latest Centos ships with python2.6 and /usr/bin/python2
only shipped with 2.7.
Scott K
Kerrick Staley kerr...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
Please install /usr/bin/python2 as part of the default Debian install.
It
still doesn't exist on 7.1, which prevents scripts with a shebang of
#!/usr/bin/python2 from running.
Note that the following matters (which have derailed previous threads
20 matches
Mail list logo
