[arch-general] Setuptools broken?
Hi folks, With the python upgrade from 2.7 to 3.1, I ran into the following snag. gitosis from AUR depends on python and setuptools. Now, python = python3.1 now and setuptools installs in the python2.7 library tree. This was easy enough to fix, by simply replacing python with python2 in the gitosis PKGBUILD. However, I would expect that python2 will disappear completely somewhere down the road. What then? Moreover, being a purist, I would like to avoid having two python versions installed on my machine. So what's the deal with python3.1 and setuptools? Is the procedure for installing python packages different under 3.1 than under the old 2.x series, and there simply are no setuptools any more? If that's the case, I guess it's the responsibility of package maintainers to migrate to the setup used in python3.1. If setuptools is still what is needed in python3.1, shouldn't there now be two packages setuptools and setuptools2 that install in the library trees of python3.1 and python2.7, respectively? (I'm happy to file a bug report if this is indeed a bug.) Cheers, Norbert -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
On 20 October 2010 07:25, Norbert Zeh <nzeh@cs.dal.ca> wrote:
Hi folks,
With the python upgrade from 2.7 to 3.1, I ran into the following snag. gitosis from AUR depends on python and setuptools. Now, python = python3.1 now and setuptools installs in the python2.7 library tree. This was easy enough to fix, by simply replacing python with python2 in the gitosis PKGBUILD. However, I would expect that python2 will disappear completely somewhere down the road. What then? Moreover, being a purist, I would like to avoid having two python versions installed on my machine. So what's the deal with python3.1 and setuptools? Is the procedure for installing python packages different under 3.1 than under the old 2.x series, and there simply are no setuptools any more? If that's the case, I guess it's the responsibility of package maintainers to migrate to the setup used in python3.1. If setuptools is still what is needed in python3.1, shouldn't there now be two packages setuptools and setuptools2 that install in the library trees of python3.1 and python2.7, respectively? (I'm happy to file a bug report if this is indeed a bug.)
Python 3 should be using distribute [1] instead of setuptools. Either way, you don't need to worry. Most software still require Python 2, and by the time we do drop python2, everything should be working. You can avoid installing python for now if you don't have anything that can depend on it ("Required by"): http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/python/ [1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/distribute
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
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
Andrea Scarpino [2010.10.20 0201 +0200]:
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/
Thanks, Andrea and Ray. So it seems that everybody involved in this is aware that this is a long process with some glitches like the one I observed along the way, and I agree with Allan that the rationale behind the move is consistent with arch's focus on bleeding edge. Cheers, Norbert
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
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!
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 20:36, Max Countryman <maxc@me.com> wrote:
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!
http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3 "At the time of writing (July 4, 2010), the final 2.7 release is out, with a statement of extended support for this end-of-life release. The 2.x branch will see no new major releases after that. 3.x is under active and continued development, with 3.1 already available and 3.2 due for release around the turn of the year. 3.x is the newest branch of Python and the intended future of the language."
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Max Countryman <maxc@me.com> wrote:
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.
in most cases you can probably do whats needed to get <insert here> to just use python2 instead. i'm a developer by profession... and this whole thing is pretty disruptive to meh w3rk flow... but hey, we wouldn't be here if we didn't expect these things, right? :-)
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.
AFAIK, py3k is the _only_ thing recommended for new development. the 2.x series is frozen; 3.x is the clear path forward... we've all known this for some time, and some of us procrastinated :-) [me]. the current version is 3.1.2... i think it's past the .0 bugs; sluggish libraries have little to do with the interpreter itself.
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!
as annoying as this whole thing is to my projects, i understand and support the decision 100%. sooner is always better than later... when our stuff is solid again, other distro's will be dealing with the same thing. it's inevitable, Smith. C Anthony
On 20/10/10 10:25, Max Countryman wrote:
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.
I turns out that only Debian does not provide a /usr/bin/python2 symlink (out of major distro), so portability issues are a lot less than I thought anyway. Besides, if you are using /usr/bin/python you have no idea whether you are getting python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and now 3.1... So if you really need portability you are going to have to deal with that anyway.
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.
Python-3.x is what upstream is developing. python-2.7 is only bug fixes. So the switch makes sense given that is the future of python. Note we still have a python-2.7 package and will for a very long time...
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
In Arch the [testing] repo is only for testing what intends to immediately go to the main repo. Leavin stuff in there is a right pain in the arse as you have to build everything twice to update a package (once for [extra], once for [testing]). Arch is bleeding edge. We do things first. We experience the pain before others. That what makes us full of awesome. Allan
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
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
Just a little story that is relevant to this discussion.... I ran into a problem with python and proprietary software earlier today, but was able (through much tribulaton) to work around it. Even after most open- source code is using python 3, a lot of proprietary stuff may still depend on python 2 and it won't be easy to switch it. This is something we may want to consider before we retire python2 altogether. I was setting up a new printer (an HP Laserjet p1120w) which works with hplip, but requires a proprietary plugin from HP's server. The hp-toolbox and hp- plugin utilities that are the interface finstalling the proprietary plugin are both written in python (with a lot of shell script mixed in for good measure). The PKGBUILD for hplip seems to do the right thing in that it uses python2 to execute the hp-toolbox code. But the plugin itself arrives as a self- extracting executable that unpacks a python2 script which it executes using the system python (i.e. python3 on my system). This caused the installer to crash, preventing me from installing the printer driver. Furthermore, after an unsuccessful install, the archive deletes itself and any of the files that were in it. Fortuately, I discovered that if you extract the plugin-archive by hand (you have to wget it first), it provides a compile flag that waits for user input after extraction, but before installation. I was able to access the extracted plugin install script and replace "python" with "python2". I managed to get the printer installed and set up (and print my lecture notes just in time for class) without any further problems. On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:00:29 pm Max Countryman wrote:
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
anyone know if reportlab does work with python3 ?
Em 20-10-2010 05:24, Stefano Z. escreveu:
anyone know if reportlab does work with python3 ?
No, reportlab doesn't work with python3. Neither Django, nor Twisted. As well the modules below are incompatible with python3 (to mention a few): - PyGTK2 - Pyjamas - Kiwi - Beaker - Cheetah - CherryPy - nose - Paste - numpy - PyChecker - pycrypto - egenix utilities (used by many db connectors) - psycopg - couchdbkit - Elixir - MySQL-python - PyMySQL - PyDB2 And many, many more. It'll be a long time for many of these modules be converted (rewritten in some cases) to python3. It was a smart move from the standpoint of package management, but from the point of view of a developer... Armando
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:16, Armando M. Baratti <ambaratti.listas@gmail.com> wrote:
Em 20-10-2010 05:24, Stefano Z. escreveu:
anyone know if reportlab does work with python3 ?
No, reportlab doesn't work with python3. Neither Django, nor Twisted.
As well the modules below are incompatible with python3 (to mention a few): - PyGTK2 - Pyjamas - Kiwi - Beaker - Cheetah - CherryPy - nose - Paste - numpy - PyChecker - pycrypto - egenix utilities (used by many db connectors) - psycopg - couchdbkit - Elixir - MySQL-python - PyMySQL - PyDB2
And many, many more. It'll be a long time for many of these modules be converted (rewritten in some cases) to python3.
It was a smart move from the standpoint of package management, but from the point of view of a developer...
Armando
You do realize that python 2 is not being taken away, right?
Em 20-10-2010 13:21, Daenyth Blank escreveu:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:16, Armando M. Baratti <ambaratti.listas@gmail.com> wrote:
Em 20-10-2010 05:24, Stefano Z. escreveu:
anyone know if reportlab does work with python3 ?
No, reportlab doesn't work with python3. Neither Django, nor Twisted.
As well the modules below are incompatible with python3 (to mention a few): - PyGTK2 - Pyjamas - Kiwi - Beaker - Cheetah - CherryPy - nose - Paste - numpy - PyChecker - pycrypto - egenix utilities (used by many db connectors) - psycopg - couchdbkit - Elixir - MySQL-python - PyMySQL - PyDB2
And many, many more. It'll be a long time for many of these modules be converted (rewritten in some cases) to python3.
It was a smart move from the standpoint of package management, but from the point of view of a developer...
Armando
You do realize that python 2 is not being taken away, right?
Yes, off course I do. But I also realize that, besides Python isn't the easiest platform to deploy to, specially when your customers aren't tech savvy and have to make some adjustment or install some module, we end with incompatible platforms for development (Arch Linux, that uses python3 by default) and deployment (some other distro that uses python2). This isn't the end of the world, by adds to the things that contribute for the appearing of problems on the deploying (specially on rather larger ones). Armando
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Armando M. Baratti < ambaratti.listas@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, off course I do. But I also realize that, besides Python isn't the easiest platform to deploy to, specially when your customers aren't tech savvy and have to make some adjustment or install some module, we end with incompatible platforms for development (Arch Linux, that uses python3 by default) and deployment (some other distro that uses python2). This isn't the end of the world, by adds to the things that contribute for the appearing of problems on the deploying (specially on rather larger ones).
Armando
I'm not sure it's really a good idea to have a development platform different from the production platform unless you deploy on heterogeneous environments. -- Cédric Girard
Hi, I don't agree that python 3 is ready for mass use yet. I think arch made a premature switch. Hence, I am not upgrading my system. I hope archlinux rollbacks python3 update. Regards, Gary
That won't happen! And I hope you know that python2 isn't gone, it's still available. All the package maintainers have to do is change the sheband. Of course that needs a little bit of work, but that's really not the biggest deal! If there are AUR packages which haven't done these changes yet, please help the maintainers with a useful comment. * Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> [22.10.2010 19:21]:
Hi, I don't agree that python 3 is ready for mass use yet. I think arch made a premature switch.
Hence, I am not upgrading my system. I hope archlinux rollbacks python3 update.
Regards, Gary
* Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> [22.10.2010 19:21]:
Hi, I don't agree that python 3 is ready for mass use yet. I think arch made a premature switch.
Hence, I am not upgrading my system. I hope archlinux rollbacks python3 update.
Regards, Gary
I just installed the python2 package and symlinked, its as if it never happened. justin
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 22:50 +0530, Gaurish Sharma wrote:
Hi, I don't agree that python 3 is ready for mass use yet. I think arch made a premature switch.
Hence, I am not upgrading my system. I hope archlinux rollbacks python3 update.
Regards, Gary
"Hey look, devs did something I didn't like" *throws toys out of pram* "That'll get them to change their minds" Seriously, did you think the threat of 'not updating' would get you what you want? And do you understand what actually was done? python2 is still installed on your system and still totally accessible after the upgrade, the ONLY change is that /usr/bin/python does not symlink to it.
You know what you could do is something like rm /usr/bin/python echo > /usr/bin/python << HERE #! /bin/bash [ -z "$_PYTHON" ] && _PYTHON=/usr/bin/python2 $_PYTHON "$@" HERE chmod 755 /usr/bin/python if the transition is bothering you too much. Then when things calm down a little you just delete that file and put the symlink back. Kaiting.
is a simple fact of relinking to python2 or there can be problems of libraries ? for example, reportlab does work ? thanks
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
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
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Mithrandir <mithrandiragain@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
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.hilton@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Mithrandir <mithrandiragain@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
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Hilton Medeiros <medeiros.hilton@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Mithrandir <mithrandiragain@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!
yeah, concur... ultimately i've had few problems; the couple i did have with pyjamas/pyjs i was able to fix pretty quickly. it's amusing sensing the hostility of some comments around the net; personally it just seems like the same old same old... following upstream. i like the python2.7, python2, python3.1, python3, etc, scheme... i think this makes it very easy for developers to select the specific interpreter they need, if any. i hope this trend becomes/is defacto. if you are just running `python`, you should be prepared for the environment ambiguity it entails. C Anthony
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:03 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
i like the python2.7, python2, python3.1, python3, etc, scheme... i think this makes it very easy for developers to select the specific interpreter they need, if any. i hope this trend becomes/is defacto. if you are just running `python`, you should be prepared for the environment ambiguity it entails.
beh, i meant to add that the `python` name should always link to the latest release; i don't believe in catering to 'the way it is now'. C Anthony
But is that what Python development has decided? On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:05, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:03 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
i like the python2.7, python2, python3.1, python3, etc, scheme... i think this makes it very easy for developers to select the specific interpreter they need, if any. i hope this trend becomes/is defacto. if you are just running `python`, you should be prepared for the environment ambiguity it entails.
beh, i meant to add that the `python` name should always link to the latest release; i don't believe in catering to 'the way it is now'.
C Anthony
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Max Countryman <maxc@me.com> wrote:
But is that what Python development has decided?
I'm not sure what they have recommended. Ultimately it's up to the distros to decide such things; I have seen that written more then once by BFDL and friends. 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. C Anthony
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 <anthony@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.
On 10/20/2010 10:58 AM, Max Countryman 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.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:32, C Anthony Risinger<anthony@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. Please don't top post. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/
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.
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.
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/
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Matthew Gyurgyik <pyther@pyther.net> 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/
Fucking hell! Can we stop with this constant nagging on the list? It doesn't help (as you can see), you waste 1926 people's time with the message (yes, this list has this many subscribers, and it is soon to be one less), and it just doesn't need to be said. I'm sure you made it through the message content just fine, even with the top post. Things that piss list subscribers (or at least me) off: * Bitching about top posting * Repeated posts containing no new information * More than two emails without either party doing anything except having a public argument * Not understanding the subject of an email and still responding (several emails in this thread have done so...) * Changing the topic without changing the subject * Voting on something that is not a vote So you don't piss other subscribers off, if you want to bitch at/about me, please do it off-list. Getting off my soapbox now, -Dan (the Arch Developer)
On 11:17 Wed 20 Oct , Dan McGee wrote:
Fucking hell! Can we stop with this constant nagging on the list? It doesn't help (as you can see), you waste 1926 people's time with the message (yes, this list has this many subscribers, and it is soon to be one less), and it just doesn't need to be said. I'm sure you made it through the message content just fine, even with the top post.
Things that piss list subscribers (or at least me) off: * Bitching about top posting * Repeated posts containing no new information * More than two emails without either party doing anything except having a public argument * Not understanding the subject of an email and still responding (several emails in this thread have done so...) * Changing the topic without changing the subject * Voting on something that is not a vote
So you don't piss other subscribers off, if you want to bitch at/about me, please do it off-list.
Getting off my soapbox now,
-Dan (the Arch Developer)
For the fucking sake! If you have not enough brains for choosing right place for quotes - DO NOT FUCKING TYPE MESSAGES. --
Am Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:02:27 -0400 schrieb Matthew Gyurgyik <pyther@pyther.net>:
Really please, please don't top post. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/
And, really please, only quote the relevant parts to which the answer refers. Heiko
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.
Den 06. des. 2010 18:27, skrev Steve Holmes:
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.
That no problem as you only keep the relevant parts... --- Christoffer
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Christoffer Hirth <lists@toffyrn.net> wrote:
Den 06. des. 2010 18:27, skrev Steve Holmes:
Really please, please don't top post.
Who cares! it takes too long to scroll down through the past fifteen generations to get to the relevant part of the message.
That no problem as you only keep the relevant parts...
indeed; not about retaining everything, but rather enough to keep context. if you haven't cleaned up your response you probably haven't read enough to have one. Steve, you posted to a 45+ day thread.... for this? C Anthony
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 10:27 -0700, Steve Holmes wrote:
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.
If you're posting on an ML with hundreds of other users, you follow the established styles. On most MLs, that's bottom-posting. "Who cares?" is just a childish response.
On Mon 06 Dec 2010 10:27 -0700, Steve Holmes wrote:
Scroll CLEAR down to the bottom for my response.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:02:27PM -0400, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:
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.
Well, it takes me one keystroke. Get a better mail client.
On 07/12/10 11:52, Loui Chang wrote:
On Mon 06 Dec 2010 10:27 -0700, Steve Holmes wrote:
Scroll CLEAR down to the bottom for my response.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:02:27PM -0400, Matthew Gyurgyik wrote:
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.
Well, it takes me one keystroke. Get a better mail client.
Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not sure which is worse...
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not sure which is worse...
Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in the ass. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
On Mon 06 Dec 2010 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not sure which is worse...
Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in the ass. --Kaiting.
Get a better mail client.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon 06 Dec 2010 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not sure which is worse...
Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in the ass. --Kaiting.
Get a better mail client.
Sorry to butt in, but I am a GMail user and I am typing this in through Thunderbird. You can use GMail without using the webmail, and you can configure Thunderbird to automatically bottom-post. Just saying.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Julius Caesar <juliuscaesar29@gmail.com>wrote:
Sorry to butt in, but I am a GMail user and I am typing this in through Thunderbird. You can use GMail without using the webmail, and you can configure Thunderbird to automatically bottom-post. Just saying.
And you can bottom post in Gmail as well if needed. -- Cédric Girard
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:11:21PM +0100, Cédric Girard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Julius Caesar <juliuscaesar29@gmail.com>wrote:
Sorry to butt in, but I am a GMail user and I am typing this in through Thunderbird. You can use GMail without using the webmail, and you can configure Thunderbird to automatically bottom-post. Just saying.
And you can bottom post in Gmail as well if needed.
-- Cédric Girard
Or just use VIM in Mutt and press G, o and start typing. \ o /
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 14:03:34 Julius Caesar wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon 06 Dec 2010 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not sure which is worse...
Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in the ass. --Kaiting.
Get a better mail client.
Sorry to butt in, but I am a GMail user and I am typing this in through Thunderbird. You can use GMail without using the webmail, and you can configure Thunderbird to automatically bottom-post. Just saying.
...and you really shouldn't ever blame your tools for your behaviour, in any walk of life... :-p
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not sure which is worse...
Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in the ass. --Kaiting.
1. Click 'Reply' 2. Press-and-hold 'Ctrl' 3. Press 'End' 4. Release 'Ctrl' 5. .... 6. Profit!
2010/12/7 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not sure which is worse...
Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in the ass. --Kaiting.
1. Click 'Reply' 2. Press-and-hold 'Ctrl' 3. Press 'End' 4. Release 'Ctrl' 5. .... 6. Profit!
Does not work.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 18:44, Joao Cordeiro <jlcordeiro@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/12/7 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:24 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Top posting vs. going off topic without changing subject lines. I'm not sure which is worse...
Bottom posting in Gmail is a pain in the ass. --Kaiting.
1. Click 'Reply' 2. Press-and-hold 'Ctrl' 3. Press 'End' 4. Release 'Ctrl' 5. .... 6. Profit!
Does not work.
it does, I just tested it . are we done spaming the mailing list ? -- ===================================== This mail was sent using 100% recycled electrons =====================================
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.
Well, it takes me one keystroke. Get a better mail client.
Whenever I try bottom-posting, my clients complain that I just sent them a blank email. As such, I am in the habit of top-posting because it is what most normal people expect; I suppose Outlook has established this trend. I try to remember to bottom-post when I write mailing lists (not too often), but it doesn't always work out. :( I don't really have a preference for where the post goes. I don't find either annoying. I understand the point in standards but I don't think we should be rude to those who forget/neglect/feel differently.
Hey Jeff, Interesting points. On Wednesday 08 December 2010 08:48:07 Jeff Cook wrote:
Whenever I try bottom-posting, my clients complain that I just sent them a blank email.
I think the trick is not to top or bottom post, but to interleave your reply, keeping the relevant parts of the original mail. It flows more like a conversation that way, and helps to build up arguments and counter arguments etc.
As such, I am in the habit of top-posting because it is what most normal people expect; I suppose Outlook has established this trend. I try to remember to bottom-post when I write mailing lists (not too often), but it doesn't always work out. :(
A little message at the top of the email, like in this one, I find helps. Also, it's rarely useful in an interleaved reply email to begin with vast amounts of quoted text (though there are obviously exceptions).
I don't really have a preference for where the post goes. I don't find either annoying. I understand the point in standards but I don't think we should be rude to those who forget/neglect/feel differently.
Ba-daa! Pete :-)
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:48 -0700, Jeff Cook wrote:
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.
Well, it takes me one keystroke. Get a better mail client.
Whenever I try bottom-posting, my clients complain that I just sent them a blank email. As such, I am in the habit of top-posting because it is what most normal people expect; I suppose Outlook has established this trend. I try to remember to bottom-post when I write mailing lists (not too often), but it doesn't always work out. :(
I don't really have a preference for where the post goes. I don't find either annoying. I understand the point in standards but I don't think we should be rude to those who forget/neglect/feel differently.
Of course we shouldn't be rude. Reminders would be helpful though (for those who forget/neglect). For that third group, they can jolly well go have conversations with other people instead =). When I reply an individual mail to my mom, I top-post. When I reply to a ML that goes to a couple of hundred people at least I bottom-post. Its common sense to follow the culture/habits of the group you're operating with, tourists do that all the time.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, maxc <maxc@me.com> 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.
I think you're agreeing with Arch's decision, but it's not clear to me, so disregard some of the following if that's the case :-) the link provided clearly demonstrates the symlink/ambiguity of the `python` name. I think he just means maybe they shouldn't create/include the symlink by default. so, my last attempt to reason with this circular discussion... :-) ultimately, py3k is here, and is the path forward, regardless of how long python2.x will be around (many years i'm certain, it works just fine [maybe some yummy pypy to come too]). They are both available simultaneously, and will be for a very long time. however, if you use the bare `python` name, expect to adapt/detect the version/etc at runtime, because you are leaving the environment up to the system. factor out the various compatibility bits, so they can be selectively imported based on the version, thus avoiding syntax errors, etc. the point is that it really, really, really... doesn't matter what `python` is symlinked to. developers need to have the competence to instruct the system appropriately, and construct the environment they need to function properly. if you rely on a particular behavior from a moving target, then your app is already broken. C Anthony
On Oct 20, 2010, at 01:10 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM, maxc <maxc@me.com> 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.
I think you're agreeing with Arch's decision, but it's not clear to me, so disregard some of the following if that's the case :-)
the link provided clearly demonstrates the symlink/ambiguity of the `python` name. I think he just means maybe they shouldn't create/include the symlink by default.
so, my last attempt to reason with this circular discussion... :-)
ultimately, py3k is here, and is the path forward, regardless of how long python2.x will be around (many years i'm certain, it works just fine [maybe some yummy pypy to come too]). They are both available simultaneously, and will be for a very long time. however, if you use the bare `python` name, expect to adapt/detect the version/etc at runtime, because you are leaving the environment up to the system. factor out the various compatibility bits, so they can be selectively imported based on the version, thus avoiding syntax errors, etc.
the point is that it really, really, really... doesn't matter what `python` is symlinked to. developers need to have the competence to instruct the system appropriately, and construct the environment they need to function properly. if you rely on a particular behavior from a moving target, then your app is already broken
C Anthony
Yes, I do support the decision. :) My final concern has been the convention of how Python is linked. I agree, devs can't rely on that. But is there anything to be gained by going against what the Python devs are suggesting? Couldn't we have python and python3 and still be bleeding edge? (Assuming that what I've suggested is still how Guido and others feel, that may have since changed.) Lastly, your reply is refreshing! Thank you so much, I really appreciate being able to discuss things like this. :)
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:10:03PM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
the point is that it really, really, really... doesn't matter what `python` is symlinked to. developers need to have the competence to instruct the system appropriately, and construct the environment they need to function properly. if you rely on a particular behavior from a moving target, then your app is already broken.
Problem is that some packages for the time being *have* to be Python 2, most notably anything numpy or related to it. Adapting numpy to P3 is not just a matter of changing some details. Up to now numpy has had its own multidimensional array classes. The new buffer interface in P3 is superior to these, so numpy should (and probably will) migrate to this. But this is not a simple operation, it involves a lot more than the normal P2 or P3 transition supported by the existing tools. At the same time other packages (from Arch) expect python to link to python3. Things would be *much* easier if *all* would refer explicitly to either 2 or 3, instead of assuming some default. In that sense the Arch decision seems unfortunate. Ciao, -- FA There are three of them, and Alleline.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:00 PM, <fons@kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:10:03PM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
the point is that it really, really, really... doesn't matter what `python` is symlinked to. developers need to have the competence to instruct the system appropriately, and construct the environment they need to function properly. if you rely on a particular behavior from a moving target, then your app is already broken.
Problem is that some packages for the time being *have* to be Python 2, most notably anything numpy or related to it. Adapting numpy to P3 is not just a matter of changing some details. Up to now numpy has had its own multidimensional array classes. The new buffer interface in P3 is superior to these, so numpy should (and probably will) migrate to this. But this is not a simple operation, it involves a lot more than the normal P2 or P3 transition supported by the existing tools.
slightly nit picky :-), but numpy supports py3k AFAIK. i am also on the vpython (visual) list, and they were talking about how vpython now works on py3k because numpy supports py3k. wikipedia/official site seems to confirm this as well. and alas, if a package *must* be python2, it should enforce this itself by blowing up :-). it mainly needs to make it easy to manually run under python2.x... this is actually all i had to do to fix pyjamas (python -> javascript translator); pyjamas was spawning subprocesses during the translation phase, but it was simply calling `python` (assumption)... sooo, all i had to do was make it check sys.executable for a valid entry, and use that instead, thus passing on the current interpreter (python2/whatever), instead of inadvertently running py3k.
At the same time other packages (from Arch) expect python to link to python3. Things would be *much* easier if *all* would refer explicitly to either 2 or 3, instead of assuming some default. In that sense the Arch decision seems unfortunate.
and therein lies the problem: expectation is the root of all disappointment. really though, i agree with you 100%; this is why i previously said i hope the python2/python3 naming becomes defacto, so apps that *must* use the 2.x series can reasonably do so, cross-distro, simply by invoking `python2`. as for `python`... i just don't see any reason why it shouldn't link to the latest release; 'to not break unprepared apps that have known about this transition for years' just isn't a good enough reason in my opinion. C Anthony
On 21/10/10 01:45, maxc wrote:
There is an excellent post by Guido here, Hilton: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html
That was in February 2008... Back when we were using python-2.5 because neither python-2.6 or python-3.0 had been released. So I doubt even Guido really cares what he thought then. Things have changed. Anyway, the point of this discussion is... well, there isn't one. The only way the python symlinks are going to change from what we currently have is if a person who wants them changes: - becomes active in the community - is elected as a TU - gets brought on as a developer - convinces me they are competent enough to take over python maintenance - makes the change At which point we all go "WTF? Those symlinks have been like that for two years." and revoke developer privileges as they are a crazy person and should not be trusted with our packages. Case closed. Now a good use of time would be to help resolve any remaining issues with this transition. Make sure bug reports are made for packages from our repos that are having issues and post fixes. Help people on the AUR update their packages for the change. Report upstream any packages that keep a shebang pointing to python when the software was configured with python2 or if their software can not be configured to use a specific version of python. Update the python page on the wiki. Allan
On 10/20/2010 06:52 AM, Hilton Medeiros wrote:
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;
Often preceded by tl;dr.
- 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.
Amen to that. It's almost worse than comp.os.linux.advocacy, which gets mostly spam from Wintrolls and Mac fanboys. Very few GNU/Linux users try and take them on there (and with good reason.) Only reason I go there (HackerNews, Slashdot) is to read what's new in the news, and make a comment or two. Arguing with them does diddly-squat. :(
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.
Well, *some* programs that worked with Python 2, don't work very well/at all with Python 3. But yeah, it's not usually too difficult to fix it. Regards.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 20 October 2010 07:25, Norbert Zeh <nzeh@cs.dal.ca> wrote:
Hi folks,
With the python upgrade from 2.7 to 3.1, I ran into the following snag. gitosis from AUR depends on python and setuptools. Now, python = python3.1 now and setuptools installs in the python2.7 library tree. This was easy enough to fix, by simply replacing python with python2 in the gitosis PKGBUILD. However, I would expect that python2 will disappear completely somewhere down the road. What then? Moreover, being a purist, I would like to avoid having two python versions installed on my machine. So what's the deal with python3.1 and setuptools? Is the procedure for installing python packages different under 3.1 than under the old 2.x series, and there simply are no setuptools any more? If that's the case, I guess it's the responsibility of package maintainers to migrate to the setup used in python3.1. If setuptools is still what is needed in python3.1, shouldn't there now be two packages setuptools and setuptools2 that install in the library trees of python3.1 and python2.7, respectively? (I'm happy to file a bug report if this is indeed a bug.)
Python 3 should be using distribute [1] instead of setuptools. Either way, you don't need to worry. Most software still require Python 2, and by the time we do drop python2, everything should be working.
Well if you're still around in like 2019 when python2 disappears, we might have problems, but I wouldn't hold your breath. -Dan
participants (33)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Armando M. Baratti
-
C Anthony Risinger
-
Christoffer Hirth
-
Cédric Girard
-
Daenyth Blank
-
Dan McGee
-
Dr. Robert Marmorstein
-
Fess
-
Filip Filipov
-
fons＠kokkinizita.net
-
Gaurish Sharma
-
Heiko Baums
-
Hilton Medeiros
-
howitzer＠archlinux.us
-
Jeff Cook
-
Joao Cordeiro
-
Julius Caesar
-
justin caratzas
-
Kaiting Chen
-
Loui Chang
-
Matthew Gyurgyik
-
Max Countryman
-
maxc
-
Mithrandir
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Norbert Zeh
-
Peter Lewis
-
Ray Rashif
-
Stefano Z.
-
Steve Holmes
-
Uli Armbruster