Gratitude due to Red Hat? More work for the PBF?

Trond Eivind Glomsrød teg at
Wed Aug 21 17:13:28 CEST 2002

Grant Edwards <grante at> writes:

> In article <1029901789.875625 at yasure>, Donn Cave wrote:
> >|> I'm a little hesitant to say this, but today (while, of all
> >|> things, putting a sales proposal together) I realised that my
> >|> attitude to the "Red Hat comes with 1.5.2" question has now
> >|> altered. When considering a hosting environment I am happy to
> >|> *exclude* any company who can only offer 1.5.2,
> >|
> >| I'm not sure what this has to do with RH.  RedHat has offered
> >| Python 2.1 for quite a while now.  It's not what you get if you
> >| just run the command "python", but it's available as "python2".
> > 
> > Right - Redhat made their mistake not when they started shipping
> > Python, but when they started using it themselves without taking
> > language change into account.
> What RH should have done (and it wouldn't have been much work) is to allow
> the user to install a recent python version (2.1 or 2.2) as "python" and
> have 1.52 installed as "python152".  The RH admin scripts that depend on
> 1.52 could then explicitly invoke python152 and it wouldn't matter which
> version the user wanted as "python"
> I remember when rpm was written in Python...

It has never been. It was written in perl ages ago (RHL 2.x, AFAIR),
but was rewritten in C.

Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the Python-list mailing list