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

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


Grant Edwards <grante at visi.com> 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