On Oct 04, 2010, at 09:10 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 14:41:11 -0400 >Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: >> >> For a distro, all those Python binaries have to go in /usr/bin. We >> already symlink /usr/bin/python to pythonX.Y so I don't see the harm >> in a few extra symlinks. > >Why would a distro want to provide all combinations of Python builds?
Maybe not all, but definitely several. At least a normal build and a debug build, but a wide unicode build possibly also. >One important issue for me is guessability. While "d" is >reasonably guessable (and "dbg" or "debug" would be even better), "u" >and "m" are not. >(actually, "u" could lead to misunderstandings such as "is this a >unicode-enabled version of Python?"; as for "m", I don't know what it's >for) I think symlinks will make this discoverable. I like that the binary name's suffix flags matches the flags used in PEP 3149, which also makes it easy to document. I could imagine python3-dbg would be symlinked to python3.2d (or whatever). >As for the SOABI, you could use a different mangling which would >preserve the ".so" suffix -- e.g. "-debug.so" instead of ".so.d". At >least then well-known conventions would be preserved. We already have libpython3.2.so.1.0 which also doesn't end in .so. I suppose we could put the build flags before the .so. part, but I think Matthias had a problem with that (I don't remember the details). -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
