41 ms·

"Most distributions I can think of had no problem replacing 2.6 with 2.7, and have offered fresh Python 3 packages alongside them as well for years now." That

"Most distributions I can think of had no problem replacing 2.6 with 2.7, and have offered fresh Python 3 packages alongside them as well for years now." That may be well and good for startups, or smaller companies, but larger companies with infrastructure running on CentOS/RedHat (and old-ish versions of them at that) still have trouble with Python 3. In CentOS 5 if you change the default python distribution to 3.0 > yum completely dies. Not to mention various other little bits and pieces.

gouranga 14y ago
My problem entirely!
hynek 14y ago
Uhm I don’t get this: yum uses /usr/bin/python, why should it care about /anywhere/python3? Also we have many CentOS 5 servers but won’t let dictate our Python based software development by their Python 2.4. So we just rolled our own RPMs and put our python binary outside PATH. We deploy only via virtualenvs, so it’s not problem.
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  Not every company has the luxury of going "Oh, that's cool, we'll just completely switch to virtualenv for everything and start rolling our own RPMs." /magicwand Sometimes the best solution to your problem is economically untenable, sometimes you currently don't have the engineering talent to allocate, etc etc.
  - hynek 14y ago
    And what exactly has that to do with Python 3.3? You spoke about overwriting CentOS’ /usr/bin/python with Python 3 but don’t have enough “engineering talent” to do proper deployments? You speak about economical factors, but doing broken deployments and using ancient Python versions (I’m talking 2.4 vs. 2.7 here, not Python 3) costs you much more money on the long run than building a new RPM every few months. Nevertheless 2.7 (which was released two years ago) still gets bug fixes and no new features. So I really don’t get what this comment thread is about.
sho_hn 14y ago
Hm, so? It's not like you need /usr/bin/python to be Python 3 to use Python 3, especially considering that Python upstream is recommending for it to remain pointed at Python 2 for now and essentially guaranteeing/mandating the existence of /usr/bin/python3. I doubt there's any Python 3 code out there that is meant for public consumption and relies on /usr/bin/python being Python 3.
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  Please note I do make the distinction of the default python distribution (aka /usr/bin/python). Some companies that aren't startups cannot or will not (policy or otherwise) either maintain separate installs of python on hundreds of servers, or require use of the default install.
  - sho_hn 14y ago
    Even if that separate install is a regular package of the distribution? I get not wanting to install from third-party repositories or even building your own (I try hard to avoid both myself, and there are good reasons not to want to invite that deployment overhead), but consider regular packages to be non-scary.

gouranga 14y ago

My problem entirely!

hynek 14y ago

Uhm I don’t get this: yum uses /usr/bin/python, why should it care about /anywhere/python3? Also we have many CentOS 5 servers but won’t let dictate our Python based software development by their Python 2.4. So we just rolled our own RPMs and put our python binary outside PATH. We deploy only via virtualenvs, so it’s not problem.

pdeuchler 14y ago
Not every company has the luxury of going "Oh, that's cool, we'll just completely switch to virtualenv for everything and start rolling our own RPMs." /magicwand Sometimes the best solution to your problem is economically untenable, sometimes you currently don't have the engineering talent to allocate, etc etc.
- hynek 14y ago
  And what exactly has that to do with Python 3.3? You spoke about overwriting CentOS’ /usr/bin/python with Python 3 but don’t have enough “engineering talent” to do proper deployments? You speak about economical factors, but doing broken deployments and using ancient Python versions (I’m talking 2.4 vs. 2.7 here, not Python 3) costs you much more money on the long run than building a new RPM every few months. Nevertheless 2.7 (which was released two years ago) still gets bug fixes and no new features. So I really don’t get what this comment thread is about.

sho_hn 14y ago

Hm, so? It's not like you need /usr/bin/python to be Python 3 to use Python 3, especially considering that Python upstream is recommending for it to remain pointed at Python 2 for now and essentially guaranteeing/mandating the existence of /usr/bin/python3. I doubt there's any Python 3 code out there that is meant for public consumption and relies on /usr/bin/python being Python 3.

pdeuchler 14y ago
Please note I do make the distinction of the default python distribution (aka /usr/bin/python). Some companies that aren't startups cannot or will not (policy or otherwise) either maintain separate installs of python on hundreds of servers, or require use of the default install.
- sho_hn 14y ago
  Even if that separate install is a regular package of the distribution? I get not wanting to install from third-party repositories or even building your own (I try hard to avoid both myself, and there are good reasons not to want to invite that deployment overhead), but consider regular packages to be non-scary.