Dne 12.9.2012 17:26, Claudio Freire napsal(a):
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Vincent Untz
wrote: I'm also not sure I like using update-alternatives here, as people will believe they can change it and it will just work while it's simply not the case.
Now that you mention, that's one of the main problems with treating pythonX.X as "alternatives". Each python installation has its own "prefix", and all the libraries installed in 2.6 are invisible for 2.7. Even worse, they can't be shared properly, because 2.6 uses a different bytecode than 2.7.
So... not interchangeable at all. And, requiring a library for python2.6 may not imply the need to require it for 2.7 or 3.x, so you can't expect to have the same set of libraries in all versions.
True, but this is not a problem in Python 3.x because of PEP3147. Simply put, you can have many different .pyc bytecode files for a single .py source file. So it is feasible to make a "shared prefix" with libraries working on multiple python runtimes. (See Phase 3B of my proposal) It's reasonably easy to backport this feature into Python 2.7, which would actually eliminate big part of this problem. You are right that from our point of view different pythons can't be really considered "alternatives". At this point, it only helps in scenarios where users install third-party python apps or modules outside of our package management - and if the users do this, it's not unreasonable to expect them to manage the alternative symlinks by hand, without us pretending to support that. m. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org