On 4 Mar, 2011, at 16:35, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>
> I'd still like the PEP to tell me whether it's python3w.exe or
> pythonw3.exe (and yes, that's bikeshedding - so somebody just tell
> me). It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
> pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:25:50AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Mar 04, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> >>Actually, my post was saying that these two can be decoupled. ie: It's
> >>possible to not have /usr/bin/python whil
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 04, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
>>Actually, my post was saying that these two can be decoupled. ie: It's
>>possible to not have /usr/bin/python while still allowing users to type
>>python at a shell prompt and get the in
On Mar 04, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>Actually, my post was saying that these two can be decoupled. ie: It's
>possible to not have /usr/bin/python while still allowing users to type
>python at a shell prompt and get the interpreter.
>
>This is done by either redefining the PATH to
On 4 Mar, 2011, at 19:56, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:50:01 +, Ronald Oussoren
> wrote:
>> On 04 Mar, 2011,at 02:21 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> For *nix, I think there is a simple way forward that is an improvement
>> over where things stand now. For Windows, I don't
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> so -1 on the python link bits.
Some of the less mainstream distributions are starting to consider
moving to python3 as the *only* version of Python that is installed by
default, so I wanted to cover them in the suggestions (indeed, it was
I do not like the vagueness about the python link. Sounds like "It may point to
this or that, but it might change, and it might break, maybe we'll change our
position later, in some years".
I can understand the uneasiness about that, however, the slightly
sarcastic phrasing describes the inten
On 04.03.2011 08:44, Kerrick Staley wrote:
[looking at version 88755 of the draft]
+1 on anything what is said about python2 (still remembering the unsuccessful
proposal from one of the Chicago language summits).
I do not like the vagueness about the python link. Sounds like "It may point to
th
On 02.03.2011 16:54, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> /tangent
>
> Does this discussion remind anyone else of the bash/dash switch for
> /usr/bin/sh in Ubuntu?
>
> The distro itself coped fine, but 3rd party shell scripts that used
> bash extensions were a whole different story.
>
> (No, I'm not sure what
>> With that settled, there is the issue of Start menu shortcuts. I
>> thought we had agreed to put version specific labels on them so we
>> would not have, for instance, identical 'IDLE (Python GUI)' items in
>> the frequently used list. I guess that got lost without a PEP to put
>> it on. Now the
On 05/03/2011 18:52, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/5/2011 12:44 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 5 March 2011 15:09, Michael Foord wrote:
On 04/03/2011 21:35, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with the related question o
On 3/5/2011 12:44 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 5 March 2011 15:09, Michael Foord wrote:
On 04/03/2011 21:35, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with the related question of
whether it's python32w.exe, python3.2w.
On 5 March 2011 15:09, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 04/03/2011 21:35, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
>> pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with the related question of
>> whether it's python32w.exe, python3.2w.exe, pythonw32.exe or
>> pythonw3
On 04/03/2011 21:35, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I don't think duplicating python.exe as python2.exe or python3.exe would
be very much work at all, if we decide it is a good thing. Sure it
doesn't resolve all the myriad problems of Python on Windows but I don't
think that is a good reason not to con
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> The really tricky part on Windows is handling file associations. I
> think we're just doomed on that front, unless we want to start
> supporting separate .py2 and .py3 extensions (and adding *that* in a
> maintenance release would be a far c
On 3/4/2011 7:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Westley Martínez
All right I have to reply to all these "singular they" remarks. Just
because the singular they has been used for a long time doesn't make it
right. It sounds unnatural, at least to me, and I've always b
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Westley Martínez
> All right I have to reply to all these "singular they" remarks. Just
> because the singular they has been used for a long time doesn't make it
> right. It sounds unnatural, at least to me, and I've always been taught
> to use "he or she" which I d
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 03:27 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Westley Martínez wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley
> >> wrote:
> >>> That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed "python"
> >>> file
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 16:04, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Sadly, there seems to be strong resistance to the idea of putting the
> Python install directory on the Windows path, of course, without some
> additional solutions (python2.exe, python3.exe, etc.), that doesn't help the
> multi-version inst
On 3/4/2011 1:35 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I'd still like the PEP to tell me whether it's python3w.exe or
pythonw3.exe (and yes, that's bikeshedding - so somebody just tell
me). It would also be good if the PEP took a position on providing
pythonXY.exe binaries on Windows (with the related que
On 3/4/2011 5:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Michael Foord
wrote:
Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows?
Any platform that considers itself "unix-like" in this context can
decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin and the *nix-y
aspects of
> I don't think duplicating python.exe as python2.exe or python3.exe would
> be very much work at all, if we decide it is a good thing. Sure it
> doesn't resolve all the myriad problems of Python on Windows but I don't
> think that is a good reason not to consider it. Up to Martin on this one
> tho
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Westley Martínez wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley
> wrote:
> > > That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed "python"
> file, he can do so without inadvertently d
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:56:39PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> I don't agree that /usr/bin/python should not be installed. The draft PEP
> language hits the right tone IMHO, and I would favor /usr/bin/python pointing
> to /usr/bin/python2 on Debian, but primarily used only for the interactive
On Mar 03, 2011, at 08:37 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>No, alternatives is really only useful for a very small class of problems
>[1]_ and [2]_.
Thanks for the clarification. I was on the fence about making the suggestion
in the first place. ;)
>For this discussion there's an additional problem
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:50:01 +, Ronald Oussoren
wrote:
> On 04 Mar, 2011,at 02:21 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> For *nix, I think there is a simple way forward that is an improvement
> over where things stand now. For Windows, I don't think we can do much
> better than the status quo and for
On 04/03/2011 17:45, Kerrick Staley wrote:
> Right, but on Mac OS X we do put a "python3" on the path but not a
"python2". We also
> create "python2.x" and "python3.x" variants.
The PEP makes a recommendation for all *nix platform, which includes
Mac OS X. I was not aware that Apple preinstall
On Mar 03, 2011, at 08:09 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>Note to dmalcolm: IIRC, that also means that the Feature page you point to
>isn't going to happen either. Barry -- if other distros adopted stronger
>policies, then that might justify me taking this back to the Packaging
>Committee.
I know Sc
> P.S. I'm a bit confused about this discussion though, wouldn't adding
> python2 to the installation be a feature change and as such not
> something that can be done in a maintenance branch?
Correct. However, IMO, a PEP could propose to break that rule. Having
such a proposal may cause rejection
>>> Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows?
>> Any platform that considers itself "unix-like" in this context can
>> decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin and the *nix-y
>> aspects of OS X). The main point of the PEP is to get a consensus
>> recommendation out of python-d
> Right, but on Mac OS X we do put a "python3" on the path but not a
"python2". We also
> create "python2.x" and "python3.x" variants.
The PEP makes a recommendation for all *nix platform, which includes Mac OS
X. I was not aware that Apple preinstalled Python on OS X, but it doesn't
really matter
On 04 Mar, 2011,at 02:21 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
For *nix, I think there is a simple way forward that is an improvement
over where things stand now. For Windows, I don't think we can do much
better than the status quo and for Mac OS X... I think Apple will do
whatever Apple feel like doing :) Appl
Westley Martínez wrote:
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote:
That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed "python" file,
he can do so without inadvertently deleting the previously installed binary.
Nit
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:57 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:44:00 -0600, Kerrick Staley
> wrote:
>> * All new code that needs to invoke the Python interpreter should not
>> specify "python", but rather should specify either "python2" or "python3"
>> (or the more specific "py
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, R. David Murray wrote:
Nit pick: Change "he" to "they" to be gender neutral.
Nit pick: Change "they" to "he" to be grammatically correct. If we
really have to be gender neutral, change "he" to "he or she".
English is evolving. I vote for "they".
Sorry, can't resist a f
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 07:03:08 -0800, Westley =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mart=EDnez?=
wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley
> > wrote:
> > > That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed "python"
> > > file, he ca
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Aaron DeVore wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley
> wrote:
> > That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed "python"
> > file, he can do so without inadvertently deleting the previously installed
> > binary.
>
> Nit pick:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:44:00 -0600, Kerrick Staley
wrote:
> * All new code that needs to invoke the Python interpreter should not
> specify "python", but rather should specify either "python2" or "python3"
> (or the more specific "python2.X" and "python3.X" versions; see the Notes).
> This distin
On 04/03/2011 13:21, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Michael Foord
wrote:
Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows?
Any platform that considers itself "unix-like" in this context can
decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin and the *nix-y
aspects of
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> Should any of this also apply to Mac OS X and Windows?
Any platform that considers itself "unix-like" in this context can
decide to follow it, we aren't fussy (e.g. Cygwin and the *nix-y
aspects of OS X). The main point of the PEP is to get
On 04/03/2011 12:10, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote:
PEP: ???
Title: The python Utility on Unix-Like Systems
With a few adjustments (formatting, additional info, correction of
typos), I've now added Kerrick's PEP as a proposal on python.org:
http://ww
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote:
> PEP: ???
> Title: The python Utility on Unix-Like Systems
With a few adjustments (formatting, additional info, correction of
typos), I've now added Kerrick's PEP as a proposal on python.org:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394
The full
[Toshio Kuratomi, 2011-03-03]
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > If /usr/bin/python will be disallowed in shebangs on the other hand
> > (and all scripts will use /usr/bin/python2, /usr/bin/python3,
> > /usr/bin/python4 or /usr/bin/python2.6 etc.) I don't see a p
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote:
> That way, if the sysadmin does decide to replace the installed "python" file,
> he can do so without inadvertently deleting the previously installed binary.
Nit pick: Change "he" to "they" to be gender neutral.
-Aaron DeVore
_
PEP: ???
Title: The python Utility on Unix-Like Systems
Version: ???
Last-Modified: ???
Author: Kerrick Staley
Status: Draft
Type: Informational
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 02-Mar-2011
Post-History: ???
Abstract
==
This PEP provides a convention to ensure that Python scripts can con
> LGTM. Please specify what /usr/bin/python is supposed to be also
> (rather: the "python" utility). I'd like it ruled out that
> installations *only* provide python2 and python3 - "python" could
> be either one, but should be present "normally" (i.e. SHOULD
> in the RFC 2119 sense).
>
> Nitpicking
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:46:23PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 03, 2011, at 09:08 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> >Thinking outside of the box, I can think of something that would satisfy
> >your requirements but I don't know how appropriate it is for upstream python
> >to ship with. Stop
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:11:40PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 03, 2011, at 02:17 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> >On a related note, we have a number of scripts packaged across the
> >distributions with a shebang line that reads:
> > #!/usr/bin/env python
> >which AIUI follows upstream rec
On Mar 03, 2011, at 09:08 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>Thinking outside of the box, I can think of something that would satisfy
>your requirements but I don't know how appropriate it is for upstream python
>to ship with. Stop shipping /usr/bin/python. Ship "python" in an alternate
>location like
On Mar 03, 2011, at 02:17 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>On a related note, we have a number of scripts packaged across the
>distributions with a shebang line that reads:
> #!/usr/bin/env python
>which AIUI follows upstream recommendations.
Actually, I think this is *not* a good idea for distro prov
On Mar 03, 2011, at 09:55 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>I don't really mind adding /usr/bin/python2 symlink just to clean Arch
>mess, but I do mind changing /usr/bin/python to point to python3 (and I
>can use the same argument - "Explicit is better than implicit" - if you
>need Python 3, say so in t
On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:55 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I don't really mind adding /usr/bin/python2 symlink just to clean Arch mess
Is there any chance you would add the symlink in the next Debian stable point
release? If both Debian and Python upstream added the python2 symlink in the
next stable
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 14:17 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 01:14 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> There are a number of other rpm packages with names matching "*py*",
> which use the system build of Python 3
Gah; I meant Python 2 here.
(Must proofread my screeds before po
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 01:14 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > I think a PEP would help, but in this case I would request that before
> > the PEP gets written (it can be a really short one!) somebody actually
> > go out and get consensus from a number of important distros. Besides
> > Barry, do we
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Guido van Rossum, 2011-03-02]
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > > [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
> > >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > >> > I co-maintain with Matthias a package t
[Guido van Rossum, 2011-03-02]
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >> > I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
> >> > symlink in Debian and I can confirm tha
> Here is a draft PEP (forgive me if it's incorrectly formatted; I've
> never done this before).
LGTM. Please specify what /usr/bin/python is supposed to be also
(rather: the "python" utility). I'd like it ruled out that
installations *only* provide python2 and python3 - "python" could
be either o
On Mar 2, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote:
> As an aside, this whole thing started when I tried installing ROS, only to
> find that it made assumptions about /usr/bin/python, which points to python3
> on my Arch Linux system.
Yep, exactly that kind of problem is why I think it's an absolu
The point is that there never has to be an agreement about the python
command, as long as all distros support python2/python3 and all scripts use
it (I think that the distinction should continue to be made if/when python2
becomes uncommon, otherwise we'll hit the same issue with python4). We don't
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:00 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 02.03.2011 23:36, schrieb Jérôme Radix:
>> No, I don't do it now. But taking like granted the fact that 2.x python
>> will be dead in 5 years and that /usr/bin/python will point to python3
>> is, imho, a little too optimistic.
>
> I don
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 16:20 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Allan McRae, 2011-03-02]
> > Having made the packages using python-2.x code from an entire
> > distribution point at /usr/bin/python2, I have a fair idea of how much
> > work is involved...
>
> * is every Arch package that uses Pytho
Am 02.03.2011 23:36, schrieb Jérôme Radix:
> No, I don't do it now. But taking like granted the fact that 2.x python
> will be dead in 5 years and that /usr/bin/python will point to python3
> is, imho, a little too optimistic.
I don't think Steven said, or assumed, a scope of 5 years - more like
a
No, I don't do it now. But taking like granted the fact that 2.x python will
be dead in 5 years and that /usr/bin/python will point to python3 is, imho,
a little too optimistic. Thus, as time passes, python scripts will have to
guess if they are running through python3 or python2 because the two wi
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 t
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
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Jérôme Radix wrote:
Hello,
Defensive programming will force you to do things like :
import sys
if sys.version[0] == '2':
Really? Do you already do this?
if sys.version < '2.2':
result = apply(func, arguments)
else:
result = func(*arguments)
And if so, have
On Mar 02, 2011, at 02:49 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>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 sh
James Y Knight wrote:
I suspect he's saying it'd be better if the time didn't come (if so,
I'd agree). Python3 *is* unfortunately a new and incompatible
programming language, it makes sense for it to have it have its own
interpreter name.
Oh come on, there's like three incompatibilities vers
On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:42 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> Well, I personally won't use a distribution that makes this choice.
> For whatever that's worth :)
This ***shouldn't*** be a choice distros have to make. There should be a
standard upstream recommended way to install python, and that's also wh
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
Jérôme Radix wrote:
Hello,
Defensive programming will force you to do things like :
import sys
if sys.version[0] == '2':
Really? Do you already do this?
if sys.version < '2.2':
result = apply(func, arguments)
else:
result = func(*arguments)
And if so, have you tested it in Python
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> > I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
>> > symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python
>> > 2.X
On Mar 02, 2011, at 03:29 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Allan McRae, 2011-03-02]
>> But is that not the whole point of adding the /usr/bin/python2 symlink.
>> That way a developer can explicitly use a /usr/bin/python2 or
>> /usr/bin/python3 shebang and have it portable everywhere. At the momen
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:13:59 -0500, James Y Knight wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> > That way in ?? years when python-3.x is "the" python and python-2.x
> > is obsolete, and it is decided that /usr/bin/python will be
> > python-3.x (which I believe is the only logical out
/tangent
Does this discussion remind anyone else of the bash/dash switch for
/usr/bin/sh in Ubuntu?
The distro itself coped fine, but 3rd party shell scripts that used
bash extensions were a whole different story.
(No, I'm not sure what lessons, if any, we can draw from that. It just
struck me a
[Allan McRae, 2011-03-02]
> Having made the packages using python-2.x code from an entire
> distribution point at /usr/bin/python2, I have a fair idea of how much
> work is involved...
* is every Arch package that uses Python 2.X already working with
/usr/bin/python and why not? ;-)
* how ma
On Mar 2, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> That way in ?? years when python-3.x is "the" python and python-2.x is
> obsolete, and it is decided that /usr/bin/python will be python-3.x (which I
> believe is the only logical outcome),
But that's not the only logical outcome. A perfectly log
On 03/03/11 00:29, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
[Allan McRae, 2011-03-02]
But is that not the whole point of adding the /usr/bin/python2 symlink.
That way a developer can explicitly use a /usr/bin/python2 or
/usr/bin/python3 shebang and have it portable everywhere. At the moment,
Debian seems to be t
[Allan McRae, 2011-03-02]
> But is that not the whole point of adding the /usr/bin/python2 symlink.
> That way a developer can explicitly use a /usr/bin/python2 or
> /usr/bin/python3 shebang and have it portable everywhere. At the moment,
> Debian seems to be the major hold-up on that actuall
On 02/03/2011 14:04, James Y Knight wrote:
On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
[Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
On 03/03/11 00:03, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
[Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
[Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
symlink in Debian and I
Hello,
Defensive programming will force you to do things like :
import sys
if sys.version[0] == '2':
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/option
On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
symlink in Debian and I can c
[Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >> > I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
> >> > symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it wi
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 13:56, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> > I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
>> > symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python
>> > 2.X.
[Sandro Tosi, 2011-03-02]
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
> > symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python
> > 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I g
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> I co-maintain with Matthias a package that provides /usr/bin/python
> symlink in Debian and I can confirm that it will always point to Python
> 2.X. We also do not plan to add /usr/bin/python2 symlink (and I guess
> only accepted PEP can chang
On 01/03/2011 21:19, Kerrick Staley wrote:
Hello,
There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at
/usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the
documentation to recommend that packagers ensure that python2 is
defined. Also, all documentation should be change
-On [20110302 01:17], "Martin v. Löwis" (mar...@v.loewis.de) wrote:
>Matthias Klose represents Debian, Dave Malcolm represents Redhat,
>and Dirkjan Ochtman represents Gentoo.
With FreeBSD's ports if you install a Python port it will install a
pythonX.Y in /usr/local/bin, depending on what is speci
["Martin v. Löwis", 2011-03-02]
> > I think a PEP would help, but in this case I would request that before
> > the PEP gets written (it can be a really short one!) somebody actually
> > go out and get consensus from a number of important distros. Besides
> > Barry, do we have any representatives of
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:14:32AM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > I think a PEP would help, but in this case I would request that before
> > the PEP gets written (it can be a really short one!) somebody actually
> > go out and get consensus from a number of important distros. Besides
> > Barry
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:45:51 +0100
"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> >> I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the
> >> year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3"
> >> would be python3.x.
> >>
> >> And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do othe
> I think a PEP would help, but in this case I would request that before
> the PEP gets written (it can be a really short one!) somebody actually
> go out and get consensus from a number of important distros. Besides
> Barry, do we have any representatives of distros here?
Matthias Klose represent
On 02/03/11 08:06, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote:
Hello,
There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at
/usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the
documentation to rec
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:45 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the
>>> year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3"
>>> would be python3.x.
>>>
>>> And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise woul
>> I believe we agreed at the language summit last year (or maybe even the
>> year before) that "python" would always be python2.x, and "python3"
>> would be python3.x.
>>
>> And by "always" we indeed meant forever. To do otherwise would break
>> scripts even many, many years from now.
>
> It s
Am 02.03.2011 00:16, schrieb Kerrick Staley:
> I think that it's a good idea to not only state that python should be
> Python 2, but also that python2 should be implemented and that scripts
> should specify it, to provide redundancy and handle distros that won't
> or have not yet switched back to t
I think that it's a good idea to not only state that python should be Python
2, but also that python2 should be implemented and that scripts should
specify it, to provide redundancy and handle distros that won't or have not
yet switched back to the python -> python2 convention. I've . In any event,
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:26:05 -0500, Eric Smith wrote:
> On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote:
> > Hello,
> > There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at
> > /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or for the
> > documentation to recommend that packagers ensu
On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>> On 3/1/2011 4:19 PM, Kerrick Staley wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> There is a need for the default Python2 install to place a symlink at
>>> /usr/bin/python2 that points to /usr/bin/python, or
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
