I wonder if it might not be a terrible idea to have /usr/bin/python2 and
/usr/bin/python3 ? I don't know enough about Python, but if the
incompatibilities are similar in scope the incompatibilities that
existed between perl4 and perl5, then having a link that points to the
latest minor release within a given major release might be useful.
-- Garrett
James Carlson wrote:
> Laszlo (Laca) Peter writes:
>
>> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, James Carlson wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a little puzzled by that. Why would /usr/bin/python give me the
>>> latest version of Python 2.x in particular, rather than just the
>>> latest version of Python in general?
>>>
>> Python 3.0 is very new and not widely adopted yet.
>>
>
> OK. I'll assume that /usr/bin/python though *will* (in the indefinite
> future) become 3.0, and that it's not actually defined for users in
> terms of 2.x.
>
> Making it the "newest commonly usable version" or some such should
> resolve the issue.
>
> With that, +1.
>
>
>>> Why does history end at the end of 2.x?
>>>
>>> Why would I want the latest of a slowly dying major release?
>>>
>> Many of the modules that you may be looking for are not yet available
>> for 3.0. I expect that most people looking for "any version of python"
>> are really looking for a 2.x release.
>>
>
> Understood; it was the _definition_ of the link in specific terms of
> 2.x that seemed puzzling, as I don't think that history ends there.
>
>
