From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: Kerrick Staley <mail@kerrickstaley.com>,
 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com>
Subject: Comments on PEP 394 draft
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:22:57 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-27-generic; KDE/4.5.1; i686; ; )
Cc: barry@python.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart1746914.gtVYRJxS1r";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201103071423.13147.scott@kitterman.com>
Status: R

--nextPart1746914.gtVYRJxS1r
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm one of the maintainers of the packages that provide /usr/bin/python,=20
python3, and potentially python2 in Debian and Ubuntu.  I've read both your=
=20
draft ( http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/ ) and the thread on ptyhon-
dev.  I'm writing you directly since I'm not subscribed to python-dev and=20
that's what Barry suggested.

I think that the PEP generally makes sense.  The only comment I have is tha=
t=20
the recommendation regarding pointing /usr/bin/python at /usr/bin/python3 i=
s=20
far too aggressive.  It will break lots of local scripts and python softwar=
e=20
(updating distribution package repositories isn't nearly sufficient=20
preparation for the change).  I know some distributions have or will do thi=
s,=20
but I think it is not appropriate for an upstream recommendation.  If you=20
would change:

"For the time being, it is recommended that python should refer to python2,=
=20
except on distributions which include only python3 in their base install, o=
r=20
those that wish to push strongly for migration of user scripts to Python 3."

to

"For the time being, it is recommended that python should refer to python2."

then it would be something Debian would likely (I'm not the only maintainer=
)=20
support.  Given that the previous position was that /usr/bin/python would=20
always refer to python2, just establishing that it should change as some po=
int=20
is a step forward.  I don't think pushing harder than that will be worth th=
e=20
added controversy associated with being more aggressive.

Scott K

--nextPart1746914.gtVYRJxS1r
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk11MJQACgkQHajaM93NaGpohwCfZNhmnoyq51jlCJ/nJ1dpbLWc
llUAn0y8pceuESDSfNLHW0DADEygs4aU
=S7uo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1746914.gtVYRJxS1r--