On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:10:25AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Joe Wreschnig writes: > > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:32 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > > You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every > > > > memory stick and virtual machine. > > > python-minimal is about two megabytes installed, with no non-Essential > > > dependencies. > > > (strictly an observation of fact; I'm not expressing an opinion either way > > > about the change) > > The python-minimal I see depends on all of python2.3. In Ubuntu perhaps > > it's 2MB, but in Debian right now it's almost all of Python. > correct, the change was made to introduce the package name, so that > the package doesn't stick in the NEW queue, when we actually do the > change. two other packages were introduced, so it only needs to be > approved one time by the FTP masters. Er... "when we actually do the change"? Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only* use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential is that you don't need to depend on it) is if we make it Essential: yes as well. Are you claiming that adoption of python-minimal as an Essential package is a foregone conclusion? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature