Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> > upstream explicitly objects to.
> Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no?
One of the appealing things about the Python language is their "batteries
included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is
available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc.
When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and support requests from
their user community when things don't work the way they should.
It is already a source of frustration to them that we don't install
python-dev with python.