First, thank you for the link, it's good to read a more fleshed out perspective.
> Of course, your own python scripts will need to point at /usr/bin/python2. > However, by doing this you may run into portability issues across distros. > There does not appear to be an easy solution for that at the moment. It seems > that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their > python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own > symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them > asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future… This definitely complicates development. While I appreciate being on the bleeding edge, in some cases it may not always be desirable. Is Python 3 truly ready for primetime? I have read that some libraries are not yet ported and that Python 3 is not yet recommended for development purposes. I'm still not really clear on the rationale for the timing; to put it in testing makes complete sense. The migration from testing is my only concern Lastly, let me also add that the rebuild is very impressive. Congratulations and thank you for your wonderful efforts! On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote: > On Wednesday 20 October 2010 01:47:20 Max Countryman wrote: >> I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3? >> >> My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3. >> As a developer, this could make life difficult. > > You should read Allan's post[1] > > [1] http://allanmcrae.com/2010/10/big-python-transition-in-arch-linux/ > > -- > Andrea Scarpino > Arch Linux Developer
