On 4 Mar, 2011, at 16:35, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'd still like the PEP to tell me whether it's python3w.exe or
pythonw3.exe (and yes, that's bikeshedding - so somebody just tell
me). It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with the
On 4 Mar, 2011, at 19:56, R. David Murray wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:50:01 +, Ronald Oussoren ronaldousso...@mac.com
wrote:
On 04 Mar, 2011,at 02:21 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
For *nix, I think there is a simple way forward that is an improvement
over where things
On Mar 04, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Actually, my post was saying that these two can be decoupled. ie: It's
possible to not have /usr/bin/python while still allowing users to type
python at a shell prompt and get the interpreter.
This is done by either redefining the PATH to
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Mar 04, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Actually, my post was saying that these two can be decoupled. ie: It's
possible to not have /usr/bin/python while still allowing users to type
python at a shell prompt and
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:25:50AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Mar 04, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Actually, my post was saying that these two can be decoupled. ie: It's
possible to not have
On 02.03.2011 16:54, Nick Coghlan wrote:
/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,
On 04.03.2011 08:44, Kerrick Staley wrote:
[looking at version 88755 of the draft]
+1 on anything what is said about python2 (still remembering the unsuccessful
proposal from one of the Chicago language summits).
I do not like the vagueness about the python link. Sounds like It may point to
I do not like the vagueness about the python link. Sounds like It may point to
this or that, but it might change, and it might break, maybe we'll change our
position later, in some years.
I can understand the uneasiness about that, however, the slightly
sarcastic phrasing describes the intent
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Matthias Klose d...@ubuntu.com wrote:
so -1 on the python link bits.
Some of the less mainstream distributions are starting to consider
moving to python3 as the *only* version of Python that is installed by
default, so I wanted to cover them in the suggestions
On 04/03/2011 21:35, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I don't think duplicating python.exe as python2.exe or python3.exe would
be very much work at all, if we decide it is a good thing. Sure it
doesn't resolve all the myriad problems of Python on Windows but I don't
think that is a good reason not to
On 5 March 2011 15:09, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 04/03/2011 21:35, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with the related question of
whether it's python32w.exe, python3.2w.exe,
On 3/5/2011 12:44 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 5 March 2011 15:09, Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 04/03/2011 21:35, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with the related question of
whether it's
On 05/03/2011 18:52, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/5/2011 12:44 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 5 March 2011 15:09, Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 04/03/2011 21:35, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows
With that settled, there is the issue of Start menu shortcuts. I
thought we had agreed to put version specific labels on them so we
would not have, for instance, identical 'IDLE (Python GUI)' items in
the frequently used list. I guess that got lost without a PEP to put
it on. Now there is?
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed python file,
he can do so without inadvertently deleting the previously installed binary.
Nit pick: Change he to they to be gender neutral.
-Aaron
[Toshio Kuratomi, 2011-03-03]
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
If /usr/bin/python will be disallowed in shebangs on the other hand
(and all scripts will use /usr/bin/python2, /usr/bin/python3,
/usr/bin/python4 or /usr/bin/python2.6 etc.) I don't see a problem
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
PEP: ???
Title: The python Utility on Unix-Like Systems
With a few adjustments (formatting, additional info, correction of
typos), I've now added Kerrick's PEP as a proposal on python.org:
On 04/03/2011 12:10, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Kerrick Staleym...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
PEP: ???
Title: The python Utility on Unix-Like Systems
With a few adjustments (formatting, additional info, correction of
typos), I've now added Kerrick's PEP as a proposal on
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows?
Any platform that considers itself unix-like in this context can
decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin and the *nix-y
aspects of OS X). The main
On 04/03/2011 13:21, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows?
Any platform that considers itself unix-like in this context can
decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:44:00 -0600, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com
wrote:
* All new code that needs to invoke the Python interpreter should not
specify python, but rather should specify either python2 or python3
(or the more specific python2.X and python3.X versions; see the Notes).
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com
wrote:
That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed python
file, he can do so without inadvertently deleting the previously installed
binary.
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 07:03:08 -0800, Westley =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mart=EDnez?=
aniko...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com
wrote:
That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, R. David Murray wrote:
Nit pick: Change he to they to be gender neutral.
Nit pick: Change they to he to be grammatically correct. If we
really have to be gender neutral, change he to he or she.
English is evolving. I vote for they.
Sorry, can't resist a further
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:57 PM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:44:00 -0600, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com
wrote:
* All new code that needs to invoke the Python interpreter should not
specify python, but rather should specify either python2 or
Westley Martínez wrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com wrote:
That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed python file,
he can do so without inadvertently deleting the previously
On 04 Mar, 2011,at 02:21 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
For *nix, I think there is a simple way forward that is an improvement
over where things stand now. For Windows, I don't think we can do much
better than the status quo and for Mac OS X... I think Apple will do
whatever Apple feel
Right, but on Mac OS X we do put a python3 on the path but not a
python2. We also
create python2.x and python3.x variants.
The PEP makes a recommendation for all *nix platform, which includes Mac OS
X. I was not aware that Apple preinstalled Python on OS X, but it doesn't
really matter: Apple
Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows?
Any platform that considers itself unix-like in this context can
decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin and the *nix-y
aspects of OS X). The main point of the PEP is to get a consensus
recommendation out of python-dev as to the
P.S. I'm a bit confused about this discussion though, wouldn't adding
python2 to the installation be a feature change and as such not
something that can be done in a maintenance branch?
Correct. However, IMO, a PEP could propose to break that rule. Having
such a proposal may cause rejection of
On Mar 03, 2011, at 08:09 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Note to dmalcolm: IIRC, that also means that the Feature page you point to
isn't going to happen either. Barry -- if other distros adopted stronger
policies, then that might justify me taking this back to the Packaging
Committee.
I know Scott
On 04/03/2011 17:45, Kerrick Staley wrote:
Right, but on Mac OS X we do put a python3 on the path but not a
python2. We also
create python2.x and python3.x variants.
The PEP makes a recommendation for all *nix platform, which includes
Mac OS X. I was not aware that Apple preinstalled Python
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:50:01 +, Ronald Oussoren ronaldousso...@mac.com
wrote:
On 04 Mar, 2011,at 02:21 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
For *nix, I think there is a simple way forward that is an improvement
over where things stand now. For Windows, I don't think we can do much
On Mar 03, 2011, at 08:37 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
No, alternatives is really only useful for a very small class of problems
[1]_ and [2]_.
Thanks for the clarification. I was on the fence about making the suggestion
in the first place. ;)
For this discussion there's an additional problem
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:56:39PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I don't agree that /usr/bin/python should not be installed. The draft PEP
language hits the right tone IMHO, and I would favor /usr/bin/python pointing
to /usr/bin/python2 on Debian, but primarily used only for the interactive
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Westley Martínez aniko...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com
wrote:
That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed python
file, he
I don't think duplicating python.exe as python2.exe or python3.exe would
be very much work at all, if we decide it is a good thing. Sure it
doesn't resolve all the myriad problems of Python on Windows but I don't
think that is a good reason not to consider it. Up to Martin on this one
though
On 3/4/2011 5:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows?
Any platform that considers itself unix-like in this context can
decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin
On 3/4/2011 1:35 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'd still like the PEP to tell me whether it's python3w.exe or
pythonw3.exe (and yes, that's bikeshedding - so somebody just tell
me). It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with the related
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 16:04, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
Sadly, there seems to be strong resistance to the idea of putting the
Python install directory on the Windows path, of course, without some
additional solutions (python2.exe, python3.exe, etc.), that doesn't help the
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 03:27 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Westley Martínez wrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley m...@kerrickstaley.com
wrote:
That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed python
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Westley Martínez aniko...@gmail.com
All right I have to reply to all these singular they remarks. Just
because the singular they has been used for a long time doesn't make it
right. It sounds unnatural, at least to me, and I've always been taught
to use he or
On 3/4/2011 7:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Westley Martínezaniko...@gmail.com
All right I have to reply to all these singular they remarks. Just
because the singular they has been used for a long time doesn't make it
right. It sounds unnatural, at least to me,
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
The really tricky part on Windows is handling file associations. I
think we're just doomed on that front, unless we want to start
supporting separate .py2 and .py3 extensions (and adding *that* in a
maintenance
Here is a draft PEP (forgive me if it's incorrectly formatted; I've
never done this before).
LGTM. Please specify what /usr/bin/python is supposed to be also
(rather: the python utility). I'd like it ruled out that
installations *only* provide python2 and python3 - python could
be either one,
[Guido van Rossum, 2011-03-02]
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
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
[Guido van Rossum, 2011-03-02]
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
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 01:14 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
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
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 14:17 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 01:14 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There are a number of other rpm packages with names matching *py*,
which use the system build of Python 3
Gah; I meant Python 2 here.
(Must proofread my screeds before posting
On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:55 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
I don't really mind adding /usr/bin/python2 symlink just to clean Arch mess
Is there any chance you would add the symlink in the next Debian stable point
release? If both Debian and Python upstream added the python2 symlink in the
next stable
On Mar 03, 2011, at 09:55 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
I don't really mind adding /usr/bin/python2 symlink just to clean Arch
mess, but I do mind changing /usr/bin/python to point to python3 (and I
can use the same argument - Explicit is better than implicit - if you
need Python 3, say so in the
On Mar 03, 2011, at 02:17 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On a related note, we have a number of scripts packaged across the
distributions with a shebang line that reads:
#!/usr/bin/env python
which AIUI follows upstream recommendations.
Actually, I think this is *not* a good idea for distro
On Mar 03, 2011, at 09:08 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Thinking outside of the box, I can think of something that would satisfy
your requirements but I don't know how appropriate it is for upstream python
to ship with. Stop shipping /usr/bin/python. Ship python in an alternate
location like
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:11:40PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mar 03, 2011, at 02:17 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On a related note, we have a number of scripts packaged across the
distributions with a shebang line that reads:
#!/usr/bin/env python
which AIUI follows upstream
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:46:23PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mar 03, 2011, at 09:08 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Thinking outside of the box, I can think of something that would satisfy
your requirements but I don't know how appropriate it is for upstream python
to ship with. Stop
LGTM. Please specify what /usr/bin/python is supposed to be also
(rather: the python utility). I'd like it ruled out that
installations *only* provide python2 and python3 - python could
be either one, but should be present normally (i.e. SHOULD
in the RFC 2119 sense).
Nitpickingly, I'd add
PEP: ???
Title: The python Utility 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
[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
-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
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
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
[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
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
[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
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
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:
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
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
[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
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
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
[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
/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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, 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
I understand, but is it at least possible to officially recommend that
python, python2, and python3 all exist, that distributions point python to
python2, and that scripts specify which of python2 and python3 they are
using? This would create a redundant system that doesn't avoids problems
even if
2011-03-01 22:50:34 Kerrick Staley napisał(a):
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, 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
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, 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
On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, 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,
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:26:05 -0500, Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, 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
I think that it's a good idea to not only state that python should be Python
2, but also that python2 should be implemented and that scripts should
specify it, to provide redundancy and handle distros that won't or have not
yet switched back to the python - python2 convention. I've . In any event,
Am 02.03.2011 00:16, schrieb Kerrick Staley:
I think that it's a good idea to not only state that python should be
Python 2, but also that python2 should be implemented and that scripts
should specify it, to provide redundancy and handle distros that won't
or have not yet switched back to the
I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the
year before) that python would always be python2.x, and python3
would be python3.x.
And by always we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break
scripts even many, many years from now.
It sounds like the
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
