Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
Oh is there another thread on this list? My apologies if so! I just joined earlier yesterday. :) On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Mithrandir wrote: Ha ha! We posted at virtually the same time! (Or not...) :D
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
I think that my only concern at this point is how the Python development team sees the future of the binary: if the python and python3 convention is kept I worry about the ease of portability apropos to development under Arch. For further in-depth discussion of the overall move the comments of the post on HN are excellent and illustrate clearly both sides. On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:52, Hilton Medeiros medeiros.hil...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:31:17 + (UTC) Mithrandir mithrandirag...@lavabit.com wrote: Max Countryman maxc at me.com writes: I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team deciding at some point that they intended to keep the name python for the Python 2.X binaries perpetually, and require Python 3.X to be invoked as python3. Arch might be alone in making this change, and inconsistent with other Python distributions. EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the subject: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker News: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840 Ha ha! We posted at virtually the same time! (Or not...) :D HackerNews, Slashdot, ...: - Someone post an announcement with 10 lines; - They read it (or not) and think that that is all the information behind the story; - They furiously start typing the first thing that pops in their mind; - By the time you (Mithrandir, in this case) posted a more in-depth post, the majority had already run to the next news. Also, the... bitching there is completely nonsense. I can't believe they know Linux or even python well enough judging by what they say about developing _difficulties_ because of this move. AFAIK, with python is easy as hell to build a local/virtual environment for any python version... I don't get it. Anyway, nothing to see there for this post, sadly. Congratulations to Allan, devs and tus for the move! Cheers, Hilton
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
That is fine unless the Python development team has decide that python3 will not become python. Python 2.7.x will be maintained for quite some time. (In excess of four more years.) Even after it is dropped in the future there's no indication that the python3 binary is intended to become the python binary. The link I posted earlier to the thread on the Python mailing list seems to indicate the opposite. On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:32, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote: I think what Arch is doing is perfectly reasonable; if you, as a developer, or even a user, run the `python` binary, you should not expect any assurances, as you are making assumptions about the target environment. If your app requires a particular major or minor version to operate correctly, then make this clear in the shebang, throw an exception, etc... imo, catering to sluggish apps that are not py3k compatible and not active enough to even acknowledge the onset of py3k, is a waste of time.
[arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3? My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3. As a developer, this could make life difficult. Regards, Max Countryman
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
First, thank you for the link, it's good to read a more fleshed out perspective. Of course, your own python scripts will need to point at /usr/bin/python2. However, by doing this you may run into portability issues across distros. There does not appear to be an easy solution for that at the moment. It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future… This definitely complicates development. While I appreciate being on the bleeding edge, in some cases it may not always be desirable. Is Python 3 truly ready for primetime? I have read that some libraries are not yet ported and that Python 3 is not yet recommended for development purposes. I'm still not really clear on the rationale for the timing; to put it in testing makes complete sense. The migration from testing is my only concern Lastly, let me also add that the rebuild is very impressive. Congratulations and thank you for your wonderful efforts! On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote: On Wednesday 20 October 2010 01:47:20 Max Countryman wrote: I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3? My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3. As a developer, this could make life difficult. You should read Allan's post[1] [1] http://allanmcrae.com/2010/10/big-python-transition-in-arch-linux/ -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future… I wanted to also clarify something or ask if someone could possibly clarify for me: where has it been established that Python 3 will become the replacement for the default Python binary? Is there a possibility that the standard convention might become python and python3 as binaries, where python is 2.7.x and python3 is the latest release of 3? I'm sure that this has already been discussed elsewhere or within the Python community itself, so if anyone could just point me in the direction I'd really appreciate it. Thank you!
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team deciding at some point that they intended to keep the name python for the Python 2.X binaries perpetually, and require Python 3.X to be invoked as python3. Arch might be alone in making this change, and inconsistent with other Python distributions. EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the subject: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker News: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840
Re: [arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
Apologies, link cut in original quote: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Max Countryman wrote: I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team deciding at some point that they intended to keep the name python for the Python 2.X binaries perpetually, and require Python 3.X to be invoked as python3. Arch might be alone in making this change, and inconsistent with other Python distributions. EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the subject: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0... There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker News: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840
