On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 04:09:58PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:52 PM Dan Book <grinnz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > As an outsider to the Python community, not having any binary or package that responds to the expected name "python" would be a disaster. > > > Can you expand on that? As I understand it, most things that are > calling for "python" now are expecting that to be "python2". So when > it becomes "python3", they'll break anyway. So why perpetuate a > pattern that's not future-proof (for some values of "proof")? While I'm wary of the proposed change, I think that this particular avenue of criticism is misguided and we don't need to worry about "future proofing". Iiiiiiiif there's ever python4 (which isn't even on the horizon right now), I think/hope that the way it is introduced will not repeat the disastrous way that python3 was introduced, and the transition will be more like the normal python 2.x→2.y and 3.x→3.y transitions, just with a bigger set of changes. Python has the __future__ mechanism and deprecation warnings, which can and should be used to phase in changes. So I think we can safely assume that if python4.0 comes around, we'll point the python symlink at it when we want it to be the default, and we'll expect all packages in the distro to support it. I.e. the python3.z→4.0 switch will not be substantially different then the current 3.7→3.8 upgrade. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
