| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used as the |
| 4 |
> > default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, we have |
| 5 |
> > done our job imho. In other words, this is just a matter of informing |
| 6 |
> > users. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our |
| 9 |
> Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On the other hand, I can see his point as well. The news item makes it |
| 12 |
very clear that python-3 cannot be the default python and that python-2 |
| 13 |
needs to be installed. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It could be argued that he is just assuming that users are intelligent |
| 16 |
enough to figure out that they need to mask python-3 if they |
| 17 |
do not want it on their systems. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Basically this is a case of "how much hand-holding do we want to do"? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
William |
Archives