Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Is there some shortage of names? Why can't a new and incompatible
language be given a different name so people don't try to use it with
the old and different code?
Before we go too far down the argument of whether we need one or two
python interpreters in Fedora we need to see what the nature of the
problems are. Python-2.6 plus the from __future__ import * stuff gets
us something very close to compatibile with python-3.0. Python-2.7 and
python-3.1 are supposed to be even closer. The last time I tested, it
was possible to turn on the from __future__ import * features on a file
by file basis. So -- if the compatibility of python-3 and python-2.6+
are good enough Fedora could run python-3 and python-2 targeted
upstreams together under python-2.6+. We need to gather experience
trying to do this before we know, though.
The problem I see here is that even if you decide that you can manage a
cutover for everything included/upstream in fedora, it is a bad idea to
assume that users are ready and willing to do the same with their own
code on the same day - or that they will know not to update until they
can. You'll probably cover most of the cases if you can update mailman,
rhythmbox, yum and the system* tools on the same day, but you never
know. And what is the backout strategy for someone whose apps are broken?
I just don't get why any sane person, especially anyone familiar with
computer languages, would ever want to give something that is not the
same the same name. Does anyone know how the developer(s) manage this
themselves? I have to think they are keeping multiple concurrent
versions installed (and that that is the only reasonable approach).
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
