Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python in the Red Hat 7.1 beta
Based on the responses I have seen, it appears that this is not the kind of
issue we want to address in a .1 release. I talked with Matt Wilson, the
most active Python developer here, and he's all for moving to 2.x for our
next .0 product, but for compatibility reasons it sounds like the option of
swapping 1.5 for 2.0 as python, or the requirement that both 1.5 and 2.x
need to be on the core OS CD (which is always short of space) is
problematic.
OTOH, if somebody can make a really definitive statement that I've
misinterpreted the responses, and that 2.x _as_ python should just work,
and if it doesn't, it's a bug that needs to shake out, I can address that
with our OS team.
M
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 07-Feb-2001 Moshe Zadka wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:11 -0500, Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com>
> > wrote:
> >> The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
> >> should be a symlink to whatever is the default one.
> >
> > No they shouldn't. Joey Hess wrote to debian-python about the problems
> > such a scheme caused when Perl5.005 and Perl 5.6 tried to coexist.
>
> Guido, the problem lies in we have no default. The user may install only 2.x
> or 1.5. Scripts that handle the symlink can fail and then the user is left
> without a python. In the case where only one is installed, this is easy.
> however in a packaged system where any number of pythons could exist, problems
> arise.
>
> Now, the problem with perl was a bad one because the thing in charge of the
> symlink was itself a perl script.
Reply to: