Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye
On 2/12/21 2:08 PM, Julien Palard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As far as I understand, the divergence between "Python upstream" and
> Debian is:
>
> - It looks like Debian target users consuming software, users just
> install a package and it works, no venv needed obviously, it always just
> work, it's fantastic. Users may not even care if the program is written
> in Python or not at this point.
>
> - Upstream Python is obviously composed by people writing in Python and
> know many people who write some Python too: all in need of venv to work.
Yes, I think that's a good summary for the user's view. But keep in mind, that
when "upstream" is speaking about the "user" experience of Python on Debian,
they usually mean the developer experience.
> So while I do agree that a *normal user* does not need a venv as I
> myself appreciate, as a user, how fantastic it is to be able to install
> a software using Debian packages, I still think venv is a very usefull
> tool that I'm very happy to have in the Python stdlib and use daily.
Debian itself uses venv in build tests and in autopkg tests. So we also need a
working venv, and we ship it. If something is broken with setting up a venv, we
should fix it.
What is less seen by "Python upstream" is that recommended upstream practices
like CPython defaulting to site-packages by default until recently (sudo python3
setup.py install), or sudo pip install|upgrade do break the user's system.
Compare that with safe approaches like autoconf defaulting to /usr/local
installs. Let me say that "Python upstream" is not always enthusiastic to
acknowledge these issues.
There also seems to be some level of frustration of "Python upstream" supporting
users using Python on Debian on upstream communication channels like #python on
Freenode. Yes, I have heard the complaints, but usually things are not
forwarded to Debian. Stefano and myself have recently joined #python, so let's
see if that can help.
Matthias
Reply to: