[arch-general] Python 3 Rationale?
maxc at me.com
Wed Oct 20 09:59:34 EDT 2010
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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:31:17 +0000 (UTC)
> Mithrandir <mithrandiragain at lavabit.com> wrote:
>> Max Countryman <maxc <at> me.com> writes:
>>>> I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python
>> deciding at some point that they
>>> intended to keep the name "python" for the Python 2.X binaries
>> 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
>>> There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker
>> 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!
More information about the arch-general