On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Avram Lubkin <aviso(a)rockhopper.net> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Alternatives doesn't work in this case because Python 2.x and Python
> 3.x versions don't share resources, even with minor versions of the
> same series. Enabling alternatives for it is a recipe for disaster.
Could you elaborate? The use case we are talking about is what gets executed
when you run /usr/bin/python. i.e. symlink management, which is what
alternatives is intended for.
Sure, but those scripts may not actually work because modules that are
supposed to be there, aren't. For example, if you depend on a
non-standard lib module, then that means it needs to be installed for
each python version supported. How do you expect to guarantee that?
Again, alternatives is only for things that operate functionally
identically. That's not even true between Python 2.6 and Python 2.7 if
they are installed in parallel because they can't use the same module
path. Likewise for Python 3.5 and 3.6.
You're essentially asking for unpredictable breakage.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!