Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> writes: > Hi, > > Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> writes: > >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:52:41 +0100 >> Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >>> I think it would work better if when installing python@3, a ‘python’ >>> executable would be available in the PATH. Maybe there is a technical >>> reason for not doing so, but I find its absence rather confusing. >> >> For backward compatibility, the 'python' executable always has to be Python >> 2. >> >> A lot of old scripts specify just "/usr/bin/env python" in the shebang. >> >> On the other hand if your script supports Python 3 you know it. > > Hum, then I don't understand why we aren't applying this argument to > every interperter (Perl, Guile, ...) which introduce backward > incompatible changes?
As far as I know, the Python 3 package does not provide the “python” binary. That’s upstream’s decision. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net
