undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgeocar7y ago0 comments

> You example script with python2 is not about pathing, but a separate problem or multiple binaries with the same name, and is exactly why you want to let package managers deal with this.

> for example what the default python will be

Except that package maintainers created this problem. It's not a real problem!

Python's source code downloaded packages call itself python3.

Some package managers decided to call it "python" creating the incompatibility, and thus creating the problem for everyone who writes python programs for now until all those systems go away.

As a result, everyone who wants to write python programs has to deal with the fact that python is sometimes called python and sometimes called python2 -- depending on what the package manager did.

> As a developer, you can't know all the different setups you users will have,

You can know what you're willing to support

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

kbenson7y ago· 2 in thread

> Except that package maintainers created this problem. It's not a real problem!

It is a real problem. People wanted both python interpreters installed at the same time, and a way for software written for each of them to functionally coexist on a system. Package maintainers provided a solution.

> Python's source code downloaded packages call itself python3.

> Some package managers decided to call it "python" creating the incompatibility, and thus creating the problem for everyone who writes python programs for now until all those systems go away.

Did they create the problem, or did they mirror the reality they saw, where people that installed python3 symlinked python to python3?

Here's a little tidbit from the last few lines of output of "make install" from Python 3.0:

  * Note: not installed as 'python'.
  * Use 'make fullinstall' to install as 'python'.
  * However, 'make fullinstall' is discouraged,
  * as it will clobber your Python 2.x installation.

To me, the implication is that python hasn't been fully installed because it was worried about python 2 and didn't want to inconvenience you, but hey, if you don't have python 2.x to worry about, or have dealt with the problem otherwise (which is something package managers would attempt to do), then you can do a fullinstall.

I think it's pretty obvious from this that the Python developers intended to completely replace python 2.x, and take over the "python" binary namespace as well.

But sure, you can go ahead and blame this on package managers. Why let a little thing like trivially discoverable information that casts doubt on your argument get in the way of a good rant?

geocarOP7y ago

> Did they create the problem,

Yes.

> or did they mirror the reality they saw, where people that installed python3 symlinked python to python3?

Evidence please.

I can’t believe any user would do this because it instantly breaks all their scripts.

Every python 3 program I have thinks python 3 is #!/usr/bin/python3

> I think it's pretty obvious from this that the Python developers intended to completely replace python 2.x

Of course they did, but there’s a good reason there are no directions for installing Python on the python website tell users to do this: As naive and full of hope as the python developers are, they’ve got nothing on the sheer hubris of Linux python packagers who think they’re doing gods work by commenting out random seeds in OpenSSL.

kbenson7y ago

> I can’t believe any user would do this because it instantly breaks all their scripts.

You mean those scripts which they are expected to upgrade to Python 3 using the 2to3 program, which installs with python? The same scripts that Python 3 advocates claim can be fairly easily converted?

> Evidence please

The fact that Python 3 has a documented option to install as /usr/bin/python and it mentions it on every regular install is evidence.

> Every python 3 program I have thinks python 3 is #!/usr/bin/python3

But did they initially? That's the question. We're talking about decisions package managers made years ago, so the status of Python 2 and Python 3 at at that time is what we need to look at.

Also, it's important to note, this isn't the first time this has happened. I remember having lots of problems trying to get Python 2 installed on systems that shipped with Python 1. It's entirely possible that the solution to this problem is from when that happened, and rather than rather than come up with a different, Python2 -> Python3 solution they used what was decided at the point they had to support both Python1 and Python2, so the solution be familiar. That's got a fair chance of being likely, since package managers are working on systems on timeframes much longer than the vast majority of system administrators, but still need to support those admins that are managing systems a decade after install.[1]

> As naive and full of hope as the python developers are, they’ve got nothing on the sheer hubris of Linux python packagers who think they’re doing gods work by commenting out random seeds in OpenSSL.

I'm not really interested in enumerating all the logical fallacies you're falling back on here. That, combined with your denigrating characterization of entire groups of people doesn't really lend itself towards my idea of a useful or constructive conversation, so I think I'm done. Feel free to reply, I'll read it, but I won't be continuing this discussion.

1: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata

1 more reply

ddalex7y ago

I am intrigued by your ideas and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse