5 ms·
But ultimately isn't the first choice for most Python projects to date. So many scripts have python paths expecting python 2 hardcoded and pretty much everythin
by problems 9y ago
But ultimately isn't the first choice for most Python projects to date. So many scripts have python paths expecting python 2 hardcoded and pretty much everything that wants python3 calls python3. I'm firmly against this for compatibility reasons, it breaks too much.
- raverbashing 9y agoCalling python3 for a python 3 binary is ok I don't see how older python 2 programs can be supported without updating the hashbang line in a Py3 default system (which is most of the time trivial) - you could also have a dedicated virtualenv for them as well which would work - and which would (looks like to) be an equivalent amount of work as changing the hashbang lines Switching to default Py3 is a breaking change and that's fine
- kofejnik 9y ago> Switching to default Py3 is a breaking change Not only breaking, but also completely unnecessary
- raverbashing 9y agoPython 2.7 being EOL at a future date means switching to Python 3 is needed
- falcolas 9y agoPerhaps then a better solution is just to remove the `/usr/bin/python` symlink, and make scripts be explicit in their dependency list. It would be a small change (that could be automated) in packages, and removes any confusion about what /usr/bin/python means.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoSounds like a dangerous precedent to start removing symlinks or otherwise not linking to the latest version? Is that just a foil to stand in for proper updates to other scripts and such. Shouldn't instead scripts be updated either to be compatible with latest python or to specify the version they demand?
- kofejnik 9y agoeven if Guido denounces 2 completely, I'm ready to bet some $$ that 2 will be alive and well long after that date