Scroll CLEAR down to the bottom for my response. On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:02:27PM -0400, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:
On 10/20/2010 11:45 AM, maxc wrote:
There is an excellent post by Guido here, Hilton: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html
Guido seems to favor using /usr/bin/python3.0 or /usr/bin/python3 and /usr/bin/python as symlinks to the respective versions of Python.
'Perhaps we should only install "python3.0" and not "python".'
We're not here to discussion semantics ofc. :) There is a much broader concern which I hope we can address through friendly discourse.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Hilton Medeiros <medeiros.hilton@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:58:42 -0400 Max Countryman <maxc@me.com> wrote:
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.
A 'python' binary doesn't and won't ever exist, it is only a symlink, Max. Since you have seemed to miss my previous post. I'll post again!
Really please, please don't top post. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/
Who cares! it takes too long to scroll down through the past fifteen generations to get to the relevant part of the message.