[arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?

[Steve Holmes]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:58:42 -0400
> >>Max Countryman <maxc at 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.