On November 4, 2019 6:06:04 PM GMT+01:00, Daan van Rossum <[email protected]> wrote: >* on Wednesday, 2019-10-23 22:05 +1000, Allan McRae ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 23/10/19 9:35 pm, Daan van Rossum wrote: > >> > [*] IMHO it is one of Arch's strengths to follow upstream as much >as possible and settle on a single current version of e.g. Python. >Older versions can be installed but the '/usr/bin/python' is always >what upstream deems 'current'. >> >> Upstream python specifically states that /usr/bin/python should >always >> point to /usr/bin/python2. So Arch does not follow upstream in that >> regard. Just some idiot decided it was time to point to python3 >about >> 10 years before upstream will... > >Given the alternatives system you, Allan, suggest. What if a user runs > > # pacman -S lua > >, will you print a list of alternatives for a user to choose from? > >Suppose you do that, and present the options > > 1. lua53 > 2. lua52 > 3. lua51 > >and the user choose lua53, now what happens when lua54 is released >upstream? I was happy with pacman giving me the latest upstream and in >peace with it following upstream. > >One concern I would like to share is that introducing alternatives for >managing parallel "versions" of the same tool may impact how KISS >Arch/pacman is going to be. >
What exactly forbids people to still name the non pin-versioned variant lua as it today is the case in Arch?
