Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.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.
For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for breaking
the standard library in to its component parts and not installing it all by
default. This problem has been largely abrogated as of late, but I'd rather
not see us piss off the python community for making a similar mistake.
That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
not us.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: