RE: RFC: New package "python" and task-python* packages: Suggesti on
David Coe <david.coe@someotherplace.org> Thu Jan 13, 2000 7:53 PM
>
> Chris Lawrence <quango@watervalley.net> writes:
>
> > On Jan 13, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
>
> > > ...I still like the idea of a
> > > real python package--IMHO it's a little bit more
> > > intuitive than task-python,
> > > ...
That's also a good point. It might be difficult to find
task packages when searching for python packages. Should
we add pointers to description of python-base?
> > > Finally, and perhaps most important, a real "python"
> > > package would make
> > > versioned dependencies possible...
>
> Good point.
Are these really needed? One could also take the position
that python is used when any pyhon will do, and python-base
when versioning is needed.
> > > Please do the task-python* packages anyway!
>
> Yes, I'm doing them (or should be!) while I write this.
>
> > I do think task-python(*) makes sense. But I think a
> > "python" package
> > would just encourage people to make gratuitous overarching
> > dependencies...
>
> Another good point.
I agree. I also think that too many nearly empty packages
are a bad thing. Could we try to keep to the task-python-*
packages, since those are needed anyway.
> We currently have lots of packages with versioned dependencies on
> 'python-base', and a few with (unversioned) dependencies on the
> 'python'.
>
> > It seems to me that we ought to pursue something like
> > "python-core" vs
> > "python", like Perl has done: a core "python-core" package with the
> > essentials (interpreter, required services as defined by the library
> > reference), and a "python" package that is the rest of python-base.
>
> I think that's what 'python-base' should be.
I agree.
> Python-base is probably larger than it need be, but we don't have time
> before the potato freeze to figure out which pieces of it are actually
> needed by the packages that depend on it, or whether those packages
> depend on it appropriately.
>
> I suggest we leave python-base as it is, and make 'python' (for the
> moment) an empty package that depends on python-base (but not a
> virtual package, so it has a real version number, and so should have a
> versioned dependency on python-base).
>
> After potato is behind us, we can start paring down python-base by
> moving the unneeded parts from python-base to python.
>
> Is that worth the work, and does it answer your concerns?
Probably not worth the work. Also the closer we take it to
the absolute minimum the more maintenance work it will take.
We should aim for 'reasonably small but still useful' -base.
> The 'task-python-*' [...]
> (I'm not sure I like the name '-bundle' -- if you have a
> better suggestion
> please speak up.)
-orig, -distr, -official, -guido ?
The package is nice to have, whatever the name.
Don't worry, be happy.
t.aa
Reply to: