Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > 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.
>> I don't see why. If python-minimal were included in Debian then some
>> packages that currently Depend on python could (if their needs are
>> minimal) Depend on python-minimal instead. This would be an improvement,
> This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only
> reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes,
> not to support stripped-down Python installations.
Ah, the law of unintended consequences.
You can't stop that; you can't say "here's the package, but nobody
should use it".