In article <4f3cd403.7070...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> > There are two issues that I know of for OS X. One is just getting a
> > python2 symlink into the bin directory of a framework build. That's
> > easy.
>
> Where exactly in the Makefile is that reflected? ISTM that the cu
On Feb 16, 2012, at 09:54 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>It turns out I'd forgotten what was in the PEP - the Notes section
>already contained a lot of suggestions along those lines. I changed
>the title of the section to "Migration Notes", but tried to make it
>clear that those *aren't* consensus recom
I'm away from the source for the next 36 hours. I'll reply with patches by
Saturday morning.
___
Ned Deily
n...@acm.org -- []
. Original Message ...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:01:39 +0100 ""Martin v. Löwis""
wrote:
>> There are two issues that I know of for OS X. One is just gettin
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>I have no idea, and I'm not going to open that can of worms for this
>>PEP. We need to say something about the executable aliases so that
>>people can eventually write cross-platform python2
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> It may be that the PEP becomes irrelevant before it is widely accepted:
> if the sole remaining Python 2 version is 2.7, users may just as well
> refer to python2 as python2.7.
My hope is that a clear signal from us supporting a python2
> There are two issues that I know of for OS X. One is just getting a
> python2 symlink into the bin directory of a framework build. That's
> easy.
Where exactly in the Makefile is that reflected? ISTM that the current
patch already covers that, since the framwork* targets are not concerned
wi
In article
,
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Anyway, I don't think anyone is objecting against the PEP allowing symlinks
> > now.
>
> Yeah, the onus is just back on me to do the final updates to the PEP
> and patch based on the discussion i
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Anyway, I don't think anyone is objecting against the PEP allowing symlinks
> now.
Yeah, the onus is just back on me to do the final updates to the PEP
and patch based on the discussion in this thread. Unless life
unexpectedly intervene
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Does this need a pronouncement? Worrying about the speed of symlinks
>> seems silly
>
> I agree. I wonder if a hard-link was used for legacy reasons. Some
> very old versions of Unix didn't have symlinks. It
+1 for using symlinks where possible. In deploying Python to different
operating systems and filesystems I've often had to run a script to "fix"
the hardlinking done by make install because the deployment mechanism or
system couldn't be trusted to do the right thing with respect to minimising
insta
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Does this need a pronouncement? Worrying about the speed of symlinks
> seems silly
I agree. I wonder if a hard-link was used for legacy reasons. Some
very old versions of Unix didn't have symlinks. It looks like it
was introduced in BSD 4.2, released in 1983. That se
On Feb 15, 2012, at 09:20 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Does this need a pronouncement? Worrying about the speed of symlinks
>seems silly, and exactly how the links are created (hard or soft,
>chaining or direct) should be up to the distro; our own Makefile
>should create chaining symlinks just so
Does this need a pronouncement? Worrying about the speed of symlinks
seems silly, and exactly how the links are created (hard or soft,
chaining or direct) should be up to the distro; our own Makefile
should create chaining symlinks just so the mechanism is clear.
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>> One other thing I'd like to see the PEP address is a possible migration
>>> strategy to python->python3. Even if that strategy is "don't do it, man!".
>>> IOW, can a distribution change
On Feb 14, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> One other thing I'd like to see the PEP address is a possible migration
>> strategy to python->python3. Even if that strategy is "don't do it, man!".
>> IOW, can a distribution change the 'python' symlink once it's pointed to
>> python2? What
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>I think Antoine makes a good point about ease of introspection when
>>you have multiple versions in the same series installed, so I'd be
>>fine with:
>>- updating the PEP recommendation to
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:07 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I think Antoine makes a good point about ease of introspection when
>> you have multiple versions in the same series installed, so I'd be
>> fine with:
>> - updating the PEP recommendation to say that either form of link is
>> fine (with
On Feb 13, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>I think Antoine makes a good point about ease of introspection when
>you have multiple versions in the same series installed, so I'd be
>fine with:
>- updating the PEP recommendation to say that either form of link is
>fine (with hard links margin
> I think Antoine makes a good point about ease of introspection when
> you have multiple versions in the same series installed, so I'd be
> fine with:
> - updating the PEP recommendation to say that either form of link is
> fine (with hard links marginally faster, but harder to introspect)
> - not
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:42 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> IMO a symlink is far and away the better choice in this situation.
>
> Please wait with that judgment until you see the rationale of the PEP
> author.
Kerrick did post a rationale in the last thread [1], but it never made
it into the PE
> IMO a symlink is far and away the better choice in this situation.
Please wait with that judgment until you see the rationale of the PEP
author.
Thanks,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p
On 12Feb2012 18:57, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
| Am 12.02.2012 17:04, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
| > Le dimanche 12 février 2012 à 16:52 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
| >>> Why hard links? Symlinks are much more introspectable. When looking at
| >>> a hard link I have no easy way to know it's the
Am 12.02.2012 17:04, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> Le dimanche 12 février 2012 à 16:52 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
>>> Why hard links? Symlinks are much more introspectable. When looking at
>>> a hard link I have no easy way to know it's the same as whatever other
>>> file in the same directory.
>> There actually *is* an easy way, in regular ls: look at the link count.
>> It comes out of ls -l by default, and if it's >1, there will be an
>> identical file.
>
> This doesn't tell me which file it is, which is practically useless if I
> have both python3.3 and python3.2 in that directory.
Yo
In article
,
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> PEP 394 [1] aims to document our collective recommendation for
> allowing shebang lines to specifically request some version of 2.x,
> without requiring that it be exactly 2.7 (or 2.6, etc).
>
> I'd let this drift for a while, but the imminent release of 2.7.
Le dimanche 12 février 2012 à 16:52 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> > Why hard links? Symlinks are much more introspectable. When looking at
> > a hard link I have no easy way to know it's the same as whatever other
> > file in the same directory.
>
> There actually *is* an easy way, in regul
> Why hard links? Symlinks are much more introspectable. When looking at
> a hard link I have no easy way to know it's the same as whatever other
> file in the same directory.
There actually *is* an easy way, in regular ls: look at the link count.
It comes out of ls -l by default, and if it's >1,
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:04:30 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> PEP 394 [1] aims to document our collective recommendation for
> allowing shebang lines to specifically request some version of 2.x,
> without requiring that it be exactly 2.7 (or 2.6, etc).
>
> I'd let this drift for a while, but the immi
PEP 394 [1] aims to document our collective recommendation for
allowing shebang lines to specifically request some version of 2.x,
without requiring that it be exactly 2.7 (or 2.6, etc).
I'd let this drift for a while, but the imminent release of 2.7.3
makes it necessary to push for a final pronou
29 matches
Mail list logo
