On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> >running "make install" will install this as "python3", which would
> >*seem* to allow it to co-exist peacefully on this system, and
> >programmers could explicitly invoke "python3" if they wished.
>
> It is safer to use "make altinstall" (look at "Installing multiple
> versions" in Python's README file). Altinstall does not create a
> "python" executable, but only a file named with explicit version
> data, e.g. "python3.1".
>
> Even if one is careful to manage installation prefixes so different
> versions of Python are installed in different places (/usr/bin and
> /usr/local/bin, for example), if something named "python" is in both
> locations, this invites confusion.
ah, i had no idea that "make altinstall" existed. however, reading
the Doc/using/unix.rst file that comes with python pre-3.2:
``make install`` can overwrite or masquerade the :file:`python`
binary. ``make altinstall`` is therefore recommended instead of ``make
install`` since it only installs
:file:`{exec_prefix}/bin/python{version}`.
and since python 3.x *explicitly* installs the main executable as
"python3", in this case, it wouldn't really make any difference given
that the two installs are 2.x and 3.x.
it *would*, of course, make a difference if you wanted to
simultaneously install two different versions with the same major
number. in this case, though, a regular install seems safe, yes?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
