In article <4e2ee813.1080...@netwok.org>, Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> wrote:
> Le 26/07/2011 18:05, Antoine Pitrou a écrit : > > Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 10:56 -0500, Kerrick Staley a écrit : > >> I'm indifferent either way. python3 is a hard link to python3.2, so I > >> thought we'd make everything that way for consistency. > > Is it? Yikes, I didn't know about that. > Yikes for me too. I’ve had a quick look at the Makefile (look for > $(LN)) and found that all scripts use symbolic links, but the python3 to > python3.y link is hard. I wonder why this is. I pointed that out earlier in the thread: "But if you look at the Python 3 "bininstall" target (Makefile.pre.in starting around line 870 or so), you'll see that, for Python 3, symlinks are made for all the versioned files except "python3". I'm not sure that there is a particular reason why a distinction was made; IIRC, the other versioned links were added later in the cycle. The other Python 3 versioned links could probably be changed to hard links as well. In the end, I don't think it makes a lot of difference. But it would be better if Python 2 and Python 3 were consistent here." I don't think it makes all that much difference one way or the other. But it would be better for them all to be one kind or the other. -- Ned Deily, n...@acm.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
