On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 13:09 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:45:24PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > > But what's the benefit of alternatives for this? Is the intent to provide > > sysadmins a way to change which python version of an app would be the system > > default? > > > > If not, why not just pick what we want to be the default for each app, and use > > a plain old symlink in packages to point to it? Changing what we want to be > > the default would require package updates anyway, and it seems to me that > > alternatives just complicates things and provides people a way to shoot > > themselves in the foot, e.g prevent that default change from happening when > > that package update lands (in addition to changing it at will without any > > package updates in question) which might not be a good thing. > > Additionally, I think alternatives would only work for exactly the scripts > that I think don't need to have a python2 and python3 version. ie: The > scripts that do exactly the same thing whether they're run via pythn2 or > python3. AFAICS, we should just have those scripts/packages choose to > install the python2 version xor the python3 version. The end user gets no > visible changes (except maybe different bugswhich we are supposed to just > fix). In cases where the two scripts do different things, alternatives > shouldn't be used anyway. > I wasn't really suggesting we use alternatives, I was merely pointing out the way in which alternatives could work and also pointing out the alternative of environment modules. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
