Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[Python-Dev] PEP 394 request for pronouncement (python2 symlink in *nix systems)
Nick Coghlanncoghlan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 13 03:31:45 CET 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:42 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:>> IMO a symlink is far and away the better choice in this situation.>> Please wait with that judgment until you see the rationale of the PEP> author.Kerrick did post a rationale in the last thread [1], but it never madeit into the PEP itself. The relevant comment:==========Also, I updated the PEP with the clarification that commands likepython3 should be hard links (because they'll be invoked from code andare more efficient; also, hard links are just as flexible as symlinkshere), while commands like python should be soft links (because thismakes it clear to sysadmins that they can be "switched", and it'sneeded for flexibility if python3 changes). This really doesn'tmatter, but can we keep it this way unless there are seriousobjections?==========I think Antoine makes a good point about ease of introspection whenyou have multiple versions in the same series installed, so I'd befine with:- updating the PEP recommendation to say that either form of link isfine (with hard links marginally faster, but harder to introspect)- noting that python.org releases will consistently use symlinks foreasier introspection via "ls -l"- updating Makefile.pre.in to ensure that we really do consistently use symlinksThis does mean that launching Python may involve a slightly longersymlink chain in some cases (python -> python2 -> python2.7), but theimpact of that is always going to be utterly dwarfed by other startupcosts.[1]http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-July/112322.htmlCheers,Nick.-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
More information about the Python-Devmailing list
[8]ページ先頭