bin/python3 symlink for python3X ports

[Li-Wen Hsu]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 00:00:20 +0400, Ç÷ÈbÈ^ÈhÈfÈ^È_ ÈFÈ^ÈWÈUÈmÈZÈcÈ`Èd wrote:
> On 10/5/12 9:23 AM, Ç÷ÈbÈ^ÈhÈfÈ^È_ ÈFÈ^ÈWÈUÈmÈZÈcÈ`Èd wrote:
> > On 01.10.2012 21:39, Li-Wen Hsu wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for working on this, I am looking forward to your patch.
> >>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please consider the attached patch for python2/python3 symlinks.
> > As I proposed earlier in this thread, I think it is sane to make these
> > symlinks
> > for latest python2.X/python3.X versions only (this is what people should
> > use by
> > default in most cases).
> >
> > And let people explicitly run older versions if they really need them.
> 
> Should I treat your silence as 'no objection'?

I have no objection, we're toward the same direction, and here is my patch:

http://people.freebsd.org/~lwhsu/patch/python-major-version-link.diff

Which does following things:

- Remove "first-win" logic in Makefile, this generates conflicting
  packages.  If we really need this, it should be implemented in another
  way.

- Create symbolic links as PEP 394 [1] suggests. ${DEFAULT_PYTHON_VERSION}
  will create python and python${MAJOR_VERSION} links, for current default,
  python2.7 will create: python -> python2 -> python2.7

- Introduce PYTHON3_DEFAULT_VERSION, which will handle bin/python3 link.
  It is a bit hacky, but I don't have better idea at this point.
  And we might still need to change this to PYTHON2_DEFAULT_VERSION
  when we change default version to 3.x.

I think it has better to be committed after freeze.  Meanwhile, if you
really want to have bin/python{2,3} in the tree, I would not object you
commit your patch, since they are not conflicting.

How does everyone think?

[1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/

-- 
Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu at FreeBSD.org>
http://lwhsu.org