On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> 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")? > The majority of the Python community writes Python 3 code pointing to an unversioned shebang, even when it's Python 3 only. This is because in everything *except* Linux distributions, the unversioned name has already switched over. And OpenMandriva made the switch before us, and that was not a terribly painful change like it was for Arch many years earlier. In fact, I would argue that the only mistake was in RHEL, where RHEL 8 did not ship with the default unversioned names that would point to the Python 3 variants. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
