On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:13:59 -0500, James Y Knight <foom@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 years when python-3.x is "the" python and python-2.x is obsolete, and it is decided that /usr/bin/python will be python-3.x (which I believe is the only logical outcome),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