In article <CANaWP3zBo8cNWNHN=jxx_m3tubk3k+vn+lygqb+yimdtrzv...@mail.gmail.com>, Kerrick Staley <m...@kerrickstaley.com> wrote: > Here are my thoughts: > * For Ned's comments, I agree. Although the issue isn't as large with > these programs, there's no reason we can't handle them in the same > way. I updated the PEP.
Thanks. > Also, I updated the PEP with the clarification that commands like > python3 should be hard links (because they'll be invoked from code and > are more efficient; also, hard links are just as flexible as symlinks > here), while commands like python should be soft links (because this > makes it clear to sysadmins that they can be "switched", and it's > needed for flexibility if python3 changes). This really doesn't > matter, but can we keep it this way unless there are serious > objections? I think adding the requirement to mandate hard link vs soft link usage is an unnecessary and unwarranted attempt at optimization. For instance, IIRC, the OS X installers don't use any hard links: that may complicate the install, plus hard links on OS X HFS* file systems are a bit of a kludge and not necessarily more efficient than symlinks. It's not a big deal but perhaps the wording should be changed to make a suggestion about hard links vs syminks rather than mandate which should be used. -- Ned Deily, n...@acm.org _______________________________________________ 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
