On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Jeremy McMillan
Yes, please make the unversioned binary the default version required
system utilities. Python 2 should be relegated to special case use where
library dependencies cannot be made to work under Python 3. This should
probably be made explicit in release notes and documentation.
This is not a good thing to do. If there's only a single script
needed then it should use python3 but if there's two versions of the
script needed, then backwards compatibility concerns come into play.
Upstreams that anticipate this thus far have been making the python3
version the suffixed version and the python2 version the unsuffixed.
Our past practices are also to create the python2 version as the
unsuffixed version and the python3 version as the suffixed one.
between these, it is not good for people's expectations when they type
a command or when they run their script to mess with what the
unsuffixed version will end up invoking.
Follow the Guidelines -- in the current larger python ecosystem they
are correct to specify that the unsuffixed binary should be the
python2 version if both a python2 and python3 version is needed.
> On Nov 25, 2015 6:16 AM, "Juan Orti Alcaine"
>> I'm reading the guidelines about the naming of conflicting
>> python2/python3 binaries , and I have doubts about if it is up to
>> It says: "The unversioned executable must be the python2 version.", is
>> this still true? In the example shown some lines before, the
>> unversioned binary goes to the python3 package.
>> With python3 as the default I guess the unversioned binary should be
>> the python3 one.
>>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming
>> Juan Orti
>> packaging mailing list
> packaging mailing list