Python 3 Rationale?
 

I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3?

My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3. As a developer, this could make life difficult.

Regards,


Max Countryman

Python 3 Rationale?
 

On Wednesday 20 October 2010 01:47:20 Max Countryman wrote:
> I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3?
>
> My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3.
> As a developer, this could make life difficult.

You should read Allan's post[1]

[1] http://allanmcrae.com/2010/10/big-python-transition-in-arch-linux/

--
Andrea Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer

Python 3 Rationale?
 

Andrea Scarpino [2010.10.20 0201 +0200]:
> On Wednesday 20 October 2010 01:47:20 Max Countryman wrote:
> > I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3?
> >
> > My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3.
> > As a developer, this could make life difficult.
>
> You should read Allan's post[1]
>
> [1] http://allanmcrae.com/2010/10/big-python-transition-in-arch-linux/

Thanks, Andrea and Ray. So it seems that everybody involved in this is
aware that this is a long process with some glitches like the one I
observed along the way, and I agree with Allan that the rationale behind
the move is consistent with arch's focus on bleeding edge.

Cheers,
Norbert

Python 3 Rationale?
 

First, thank you for the link, it's good to read a more fleshed out perspective.

> Of course, your own python scripts will need to point at /usr/bin/python2. However, by doing this you may run into portability issues across distros. There does not appear to be an easy solution for that at the moment. It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future…

This definitely complicates development. While I appreciate being on the bleeding edge, in some cases it may not always be desirable.

Is Python 3 truly ready for primetime? I have read that some libraries are not yet ported and that Python 3 is not yet recommended for development purposes.

I'm still not really clear on the rationale for the timing; to put it in testing makes complete sense. The migration from testing is my only concern

Lastly, let me also add that the rebuild is very impressive. Congratulations and thank you for your wonderful efforts!

On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote:

> On Wednesday 20 October 2010 01:47:20 Max Countryman wrote:
>> I'm curious what the rationale is behind changing the default to Python 3?
>>
>> My understanding is that many libraries are not yet available on Python 3.
>> As a developer, this could make life difficult.
>
> You should read Allan's post[1]
>
> [1] http://allanmcrae.com/2010/10/big-python-transition-in-arch-linux/
>
> --
> Andrea Scarpino
> Arch Linux Developer

Python 3 Rationale?
 

> It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future…


I wanted to also clarify something or ask if someone could possibly clarify for me: where has it been established that Python 3 will become the replacement for the default Python binary? Is there a possibility that the standard convention might become python and python3 as binaries, where python is 2.7.x and python3 is the latest release of 3? I'm sure that this has already been discussed elsewhere or within the Python community itself, so if anyone could just point me in the direction I'd really appreciate it. Thank you!

Python 3 Rationale?
 

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 20:36, Max Countryman <maxc@me.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future…
>
>
> I wanted to also clarify something or ask if someone could possibly clarify for me: where has it been established that Python 3 will become the replacement for the default Python binary? Is there a possibility that the standard convention might become python and python3 as binaries, where python is 2.7.x and python3 is the latest release of 3? I'm sure that this has already been discussed elsewhere or within the Python community itself, so if anyone could just point me in the direction I'd really appreciate it. Thank you!

http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3
"At the time of writing (July 4, 2010), the final 2.7 release is out,
with a statement of extended support for this end-of-life release. The
2.x branch will see no new major releases after that. 3.x is under
active and continued development, with 3.1 already available and 3.2
due for release around the turn of the year.

3.x is the newest branch of Python and the intended future of the language."

Python 3 Rationale?
 

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Max Countryman <maxc@me.com> wrote:
> First, thank you for the link, it's good to read a more fleshed out perspective.
>
>> Of course, your own python scripts will need to point at /usr/bin/python2. However, by doing this you may run into portability issues across distros. There does not appear to be an easy solution for that at the moment. It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future…
>
> This definitely complicates development. While I appreciate being on the bleeding edge, in some cases it may not always be desirable.

in most cases you can probably do whats needed to get <insert here> to
just use python2 instead. i'm a developer by profession... and this
whole thing is pretty disruptive to meh w3rk flow... but hey, we
wouldn't be here if we didn't expect these things, right? :-)

> Is Python 3 truly ready for primetime? I have read that some libraries are not yet ported and that Python 3 is not yet recommended for development purposes.

AFAIK, py3k is the _only_ thing recommended for new development. the
2.x series is frozen; 3.x is the clear path forward... we've all known
this for some time, and some of us procrastinated :-) [me]. the
current version is 3.1.2... i think it's past the .0 bugs; sluggish
libraries have little to do with the interpreter itself.

> I'm still not really clear on the rationale for the timing; to put it in testing makes complete sense. The migration from testing is my only concern
>
> Lastly, let me also add that the rebuild is very impressive. Congratulations and thank you for your wonderful efforts!

as annoying as this whole thing is to my projects, i understand and
support the decision 100%. sooner is always better than later... when
our stuff is solid again, other distro's will be dealing with the same
thing. it's inevitable, Smith.

C Anthony

Python 3 Rationale?
 

On 20/10/10 10:25, Max Countryman wrote:

First, thank you for the link, it's good to read a more fleshed out perspective.


Of course, your own python scripts will need to point at /usr/bin/python2. However, by doing this you may run into portability issues across distros. There does not appear to be an easy solution for that at the moment. It seems that while most (all?) distributions include a /usr/bin/python3 link to their python3.xbinary, none do the same thing for python2.x. Either create your own symlink in your path for those distros or even better file a bug with them asking for such a symlink. They are going to need one in the future…


This definitely complicates development. While I appreciate being on the bleeding edge, in some cases it may not always be desirable.


I turns out that only Debian does not provide a /usr/bin/python2 symlink
(out of major distro), so portability issues are a lot less than I
thought anyway. Besides, if you are using /usr/bin/python you have no
idea whether you are getting python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and now 3.1...
So if you really need portability you are going to have to deal with
that anyway.



Is Python 3 truly ready for primetime? I have read that some libraries are not yet ported and that Python 3 is not yet recommended for development purposes.


Python-3.x is what upstream is developing. python-2.7 is only bug
fixes. So the switch makes sense given that is the future of python.
Note we still have a python-2.7 package and will for a very long time...



I'm still not really clear on the rationale for the timing; to put it in testing makes complete sense. The migration from testing is my only concern


In Arch the [testing] repo is only for testing what intends to
immediately go to the main repo. Leavin stuff in there is a right pain
in the arse as you have to build everything twice to update a package
(once for [extra], once for [testing]).


Arch is bleeding edge. We do things first. We experience the pain
before others. That what makes us full of awesome.


Allan

Python 3 Rationale?
 

> I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team deciding at some point that they intended to keep the name "python" for the Python 2.X binaries perpetually, and require Python 3.X to be invoked as "python3". Arch might be alone in making this change, and inconsistent with other Python distributions.
> EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the subject: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0...

There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker News: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840

Python 3 Rationale?
 

Apologies, link cut in original quote: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/011910.html

On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Max Countryman wrote:

>> I failed to find a reference, but I seem to remember the Python team deciding at some point that they intended to keep the name "python" for the Python 2.X binaries perpetually, and require Python 3.X to be invoked as "python3". Arch might be alone in making this change, and inconsistent with other Python distributions.
>> EDIT: I can't find a conclusive decision but here is one discussion on the subject: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-February/0...
>
> There is any interesting conversation taking place over at Hacker News: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808840