[Python-3000] should Python 3's executable install as 'python'? (original) (raw)
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Sun Mar 9 01:47:50 CET 2008
- Previous message: [Python-3000] should Python 3's executable install as 'python'?
- Next message: [Python-3000] should Python 3's executable install as 'python'?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:33:21 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote: > skip at pobox.com writes: > > > I still think it worthwhile to have some target in the Makefile > > which depends on altinstall and does the bininstall and maninstall > > steps. Something like "makeprimary"? > How about "install-as-python" or "install-as-default"? How about the install target smart? If there's a $PREFIX/bin/python, it doesn't clobber it. If there's not, it does.
That's not enough -- this might hide a "python" on the shell's $PATH in a later spot.
During the next 3 years or so, installing Py3k as the default "python" will be a deed of utter irresponsibility and is likely to break your system in subtle ways (both OSX and Linux these days use Python for certain system tasks). If you really want to shoot yourself in the foot this way, go ahead and explicitly use "make altinstall bininstall" or link it yourself.
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message: [Python-3000] should Python 3's executable install as 'python'?
- Next message: [Python-3000] should Python 3's executable install as 'python'?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]