Am 18.04.2013 22:59 schrieb "Scott Kitterman" <deb...@kitterman.com>: > First, the absence of /usr/bin/python2 is a valid bug. The fact that it's not > present is an accident, but I think you are pointing your frustration in the > wrong direction. > > PEP 394 was written AFTER Archlinux took the insane step of pointing > /usr/bin/python at a python3 version. That is not something that upstream had > ever intended or expected. PEP 394 was done to try and, eventually, undo the > damage. In the mean time, the problem you are concerned about will exist > until every single distribution that was shipped without /usr/bin/python2 is > retired. This is a long term issue and in the scheme of the problem you are > bothered about, one release on one distribution isn't that big of an issue.
I didn't know that. Of course that changes my perspective, thanks. However, in case a part of the discussion about removing the symlink took place after archlinux already changed it, I guess that was irresponsible as well. Ultimately, while I think it was a reckless move, I think it's the right one in the long term, as arch's behavior makes the most sense to me: "python" meaning "binary used to start the newest Python interpreter" and "pythonx" meaning "specific major version to start or use in a hashbang". > The version of python-defaults in Experimental does have /usr/bin/python2 and > that is what's intended to be the bases of the Python system for Jesse. > > Scott K Awesome, so as long as that "python-defaults" package doesn't cease to be Jesse's default Python, this bug can be considered fixed? — Phil
