D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you have a different solution that's fine as well.
The whole stuff is handled by alternatives.
See update-alternatives manpage.
It would be better to have a small script that:
- update-alternatives
- run compileall.py in /usr/lib/python/site-packa
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:14:17AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> * we make /usr/bin/python point to python 2 thanks to alternatives
Oh gag. This was the same thing that's made perl such a mess. The major
problem (or one of them) is that packages that need python 2 can't rely
on /usr/bin/pyth
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:14:17AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > * we make /usr/bin/python point to python 2 thanks to alternatives
>
> Oh gag. This was the same thing that's made perl such a mess. The major
> problem (or one of them) is that packages that need py
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:53:39AM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
| D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > If you have a different solution that's fine as well.
|
| The whole stuff is handled by alternatives.
| See update-alternatives manpage.
|
Oh, ok. Another part of the Debian package sys
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> And thanks to a small change in the interpreter, the current version
> looks for modules in /usr/lib/python//site-packages and
> then /usr/lib/python/site-package. Other modules are invisible.
Note that there is no change to the interpreter necessa
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 09:16:51AM -0600, Rob Tillotson wrote:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
| > And thanks to a small change in the interpreter, the current version
| > looks for modules in /usr/lib/python//site-packages and
| > then /usr/lib/python/site-package. Other modules
Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that there is no change to the interpreter necessary to achieve
> this. Debian Python installations already search in both
> /usr/lib/python/site-packages and /usr/lib/site-python for packages.
I'm glad to see that my post is making people react
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are .pyc's incompatible across versions or did the bytecode spec
> remain the same?
According to the NEWS file for Python 2.0, bytecode files are not
compatible between releases. You can verify this by using both python
1.5 and 2.0 to import the same .py file a
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:07:16AM -0600, Rob Tillotson wrote:
> D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (Does anyone know where the bytecode format is documented? I am
> > interested in understanding how bytecode works and is designed.)
>
> As far as I know it's only documented in the source. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> > It seems rather cumbersome that all version independent packages would
> > have to be recompiled every time you switch python versions. That's
> However, It is strange to periodically switch from one version to
> another.
Well, it's not a matter o
Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it's not a matter of switching, really -- it's a matter of
> having multiple versions of the interpreter installed at the same time
> and being able to use any of them at any time.
Well, even there are two or more interpreters installed on the s
What I want is if we allow both Python 1.5 _and_ Python 2.0 to be
installed simultaneously we also must allow to actually use both at
the same time.
I want to do both
#python15 -c "import sys"
and
#python20 -c "import sys"
Or, I want to switch my alternative settings for the Python interpreter
from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> And a final thought: why dont we replace Python 1.5.2 with 2.0 and
> save us all this hassle with Python versions? I dont think that there
> are Python apps that only work on 1.5, but not on 2.0.
The 2.0 license may not be compatible with the GPL. Any GPLed Python
code
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:01:40PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What I want is if we allow both Python 1.5 _and_ Python 2.0 to be
> So we need
> ...
No, we don't. Python already installs its modules into
$PREFIX/lib/python$VERSION
I've already built a Python 2.0 package with installs a
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:32:02PM -0800, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
| On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:01:40PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > What I want is if we allow both Python 1.5 _and_ Python 2.0 to be
| > So we need
| > ...
|
| No, we don't. Python already installs its modules into
|
| $
Hi all,
I'm reposting this mail on -devel as not all python modules maintainers
are -python subscribers. Discussions will continue on -python.
This version contains small modifications from the one firstly posted
on -python.
Proposal: Reorganizing Python for Python 2.
---
Hello,
> * we make /usr/bin/python point to python 2 thanks to alternatives
> * we run a compileall.py in python/site-packages in order to
> get them byte-recompiled for 2.0
From the Python news file:
- Python bytecode files (*.pyc and *.pyo) are not compatible between
releases
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Now what if you install Python 2.0 and then call /usr/bin/python15?
> This will use the newly-compiled .pyc files which are incompatible.
Python handles this without doing anything nasty, thankfully... it
treats the unusable .pyc/.pyo file as if it was out-of-date or
no
18 matches
Mail list logo
