On 20Aug2012 12:19, Emile van Sebille <em...@fenx.com> wrote: | On 8/20/2012 11:37 AM Walter Hurry said... | > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:02:25 -0700, Emile van Sebille wrote: | >> On 8/20/2012 10:20 AM Walter Hurry said... | >>> I concur, but FYI the version of Python with RHEL5 is 2.4. Still, OP | >>> should stick with that unless there is a pressing reason. | >> | >> Hence, the 2.6 install. | > | > First, sorry for my omission to trim. | > | > Second, the reason for recommending that OP stick to the Red Hat provided | > version (unless there is a pressing reason) is the question of the | > already-paid-for Red Hat support. | | Generally, when you compile from source the binaries will install to | /usr/local/bin and not be in conflict with RH's install version.
I was going to chime in with this anyway had the thread said nothing; I strongly prefer to specify --prefix explicitly with configure. My personal habit to to build with (adjust to match): --prefix=/usr/local/python-2.6.4 and put some symlinks in /usr/local/bin afterwards (python2.6, etc). That way one doesn't tread on the system Python (after all the OS vendor distro is also a collection of packages with coordinated versions) and one can easily put in another python beside it. | > And for that matter, if OP is forced to a later Python 2 version than | > 2.4, why not 2.7.3? | | Package dependencies. If the OP intends to install a package that | doesn't support other than 2.6, you install 2.6. Indeed. And this is a strong reason to keep out of the vendor's /usr filesystem space, also. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
