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@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:58:42 -0400 > >>Max Countryman <maxc@xxxxxx> 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.
