On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 6:09 PM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
On Saturday, May 9, 2020 2:40:02 PM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 09. 05. 20 22:56, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 3:38:36 PM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> >> The command that the user executes is "python3.9", not
"python39".
> >
> >
> > Let's be realistic. The command they run is 'python',
'python2' or
> > 'python3'. Sure, it's a symlink, but that's what users actually
type to
> > be executed.
>
> The entire point of packaging Python 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 is to
> support users who need to be that explicit. The fact that you don't
> consider this use case dos not justify the "let's be realistic"
comment.
> Please, don't.
In every environment I've seen a specific version used, the primary symlink is
updated to point to the version that's supported or being used. For example,
at work engineers asked for Python 2.7 to be installed on all of the systems
in a given department, so my team installed the SCL, created a wrapper and
updated the symlink 'python' to point to it.
In *my* case, I'm producing RPMs and DEBs that are pointed
specifically at each interpreter version. And I do both development
using virtualenvs with different Python versions (and using tools like
tox to do testing across the versions) and straight up system-style
development targeting these interpreters when needed.
In fact, I *asked* for this change to be made because it makes *my*
life simpler, and rationalizes things across Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu
(which I frequently port back and forth). The fact that the team was
considering it for other reasons was merely a lucky coincidence.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!