| This just feels like culture clash to me - the whole change to Python 3 was about accepting the cost of breaking changes to avoid dragging around useless cruft and bad decisions forever. The idea that we should then never use `python` to mean `python3` is just so backwards. Sure, in your corporate environment where backwards compatability is suepr important, do that. In Arch, people have a distro that moves fast and breaks things, and we are fine with that. I'll accept the cost of occasionally having to change a shebang line (although as I have almost never had to go outside the AUR - someone else in the Arch community has almost always dealt with this for me). > No, there wasn't, and yes, it was some maverick decision. It was done without consultation with upstream. Fair enough, I got my timelines mixed up - but to be fair, it was then ratified as the correct way to do things because the upstream project agreed with the core idea. > The right way to migrate would be to ship and use both /usr/bin/python2 and /usr/bin/python3. Leave /usr/bin/python as a symlink to python2 for a while. Eventually, drop the symlink, but do not replace it with python3. Allow users to opt-in to a compat symlink if they wish. Let stuff catch up. When the expectation that "python" is python2 has faded, then introduce a symlink from python to python3 by default, letting users opt-in earlier if they wish. I don't really see why I should have to do this manually? If you don't want that behaviour, use another distro. This just feels like you feel like you should have some say in how other people set up their systems. If you really hate it so much, don't support Arch - that'd be fair. Trying to shame the distro for doing it ignores the fact it's the core idea of the distro to do stuff like that, that's the point. |
I did not present any such idea. I presented a sane migration path to where `python` means `python3`.
> ...it was then ratified as the correct way to do things because the upstream project agreed with the core idea.
No. It was because the upstream project had their hand forced and are pragmatic about these things.
> I don't really see why I should have to do this manually?
In my proposal for a sane migration path to the ideal? You wouldn't have to do it manually. The distribution would do it. As a user you'd be able to override it to speed up the migration for yourself if you chose; that's all.