On 2/25/06, Bob Ippolito <bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There also third party
applications that currently depend on this particular Python, such as
Thumbscrew.
My opinion is that any third party application that depends on any
python versions or components being seperately installed (even the OS
preinstalled versions of Python) is a poorly distributed application -
in that I expect the goal of distribution is for the tool to be used
widely and to work without problems. It's naive to think promoting
"best practices" for system configuration is the solution to
compatibility stuff that Py2Exe and Py2App could solve so easily.
(Please note I'm not knocking source distros, they are great, and I
don't think App and exe distros replace them, just that they work much
much better for people not interested in changing the source).
Just because you haven't had any problems, doesn't mean you didn't
break anything.
If someone wants to look at things that way, then installing your own
python and making the path point there "breaks" things too, and would
be the "wrong thing to do" as well. You've changed what you get when
you ask for "python", so an app/script that doesn't specify
/usr/bin/python and expects the OS preinstalled 2.3 would have the
exact same problems as if you modified the symlinks, but not the path.
The only reason I can see for thinking that changing what you get from
/usr/bin/python is wrong, but that changing what you get when you ask
for python isn't wrong, is that it's simpy more likely that developers
make certain assumptions and not others.
So it may be practical advice to say don't change that symlink, but
that doesn't mean it's right on principle - I mean, why shouldn't the
developer be asking for /usr/bin/python2.3 if that's what they really
want? I'd even go a step further and say the developer should be
distributing the python they tested with.