On Mar 2, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Am 02.03.2011 20:49, schrieb James Y Knight: >> On Mar 2, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >>> I don't have a problem with adding such a symlink, and I think it >>> should be done by Informational PEP, not Standards Track PEP. >>> Since there will be no Python 2.8, our own build system shouldn't >>> ever be changed to add such a link, but we can recommend it for >>> consistency among distros, which would be free to adopt it or not. >> >> Why not? 2.7 is supposed to be in long term maintenance mode. Surely >> if it's a good idea for everyone else to ship a python2 binary, >> 2.7.next should also install it when building from source... > > I agree with Barry that this would be a new feature, and, by default, > cannot be added to the 2.7 release which is in maintenance mode. > > IMO, an accepted PEP could override the policy, though.
That sounds like an entirely reasonable position to take. All the more reason for someone who's in favor of python3 being called "python" in the future to write the PEP outlining how to ease the transition by providing a "python2" link now. James _______________________________________________ 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
