Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as
Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy,
this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debian-devel and
consensus is reached, but I couldn't find that discussion in the list
I've changed the override to Priority: standard; I can't say I'm remotely
impressed by how this has been handled.
Could this be stopped, please? I don't know much about the Debian base
management, but if I recall correctly, Python used to be kept away
specifically to stop the base bloat.
A quick comparison of fresh unconfigured i386 chroots:
a +25MB increase, even though etch is nearly in sync.
With standard/important packages, you simply don't install them; removing
required/essential ones is not trivial. Extra bloat doesn't
noticeably hurt Ubuntu because Ubuntu doesn't try to support memory
sticks, old hardware, embedded things or farms of tiny virtual machines;
Debian does. No one cares about wasting some memory and disk space on a
Also, I can't think of any important packages that need Python. Let's
check a few of my systems:
* firewall/squid/WWW/samba/mail/DNS server (Sarge, headless)
* Postgres/MySQL (Sarge, headless)
* firewall/squid/DNS cache (Sarge, headless)
* router (Sarge, headless)
* desktop (Sid)
apt-listchanges, reportbug, btdownloadcurses (IIRC, it's off)
So, it's not a matter of scripts that exist but a matter of possible
future stuff. And since the DDs who work on base all have good sets of
skills at least in Perl ans Bash, keeping Python at standard or less
won't really hurt anything.
/-----------------------\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet,
| email@example.com | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
Segmentation fault (core dumped)