On 08/15/2013 07:51 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Sascha Peilicke <speilicke@suse.com> wrote:
In fact, I'm not a big fan of using alternatives. Both versions aren't so easily switchable. I happen to agree with the can of worms thing.
The only thing needing u-a is the /usr/bin/python binary (and probably the man-page). Of course we ship a lot of Python software with she-banks like "#!/usr/bin/python" or "#!/usr/bin/env" python. Whenever one of those just accepts one specific major version, it needs adjustment.
So I would like to u-a the "python" and "python3" package with the latter having a higher priority (thus being the default). Software that insists on the old Python-2.7 can be fixed to use #!/usr/bin/python2 instead. On the other hand, most upstream codebases actually run on both, so it's not going to be a big issue.
Yes, that's the issue I mention. Lots of software wrongfully requests "any python" when in fact they require python2.
And in any case, it's not like the user really should be able to switch our packages (the ones that do accept any python version) between py2 and py3 at will. That will create a support nightmare. The packager should be the only one deciding.
Ok, as replied to Christian already, I agree it's probably better to stay with the current solution. Let's wait and see what people expect /usr/bin/python to be in the future :-) -- Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)