Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
>> > > not us.
>> > Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
>> Ah, ok. Then why bother with the package at all then? Why not just make all
>> of python Essential: yes?
> Because it has additional dependencies on packages which are not Essential:
> yes, and because -minimal is much smaller (if someone explicitly uninstalls
> it, along with the standard packages which depend on it), we can assume they
> are accepting the consequences).
I'm confused now. Python depends on, say, foobie, where foobie is not
Essential, and is quite large.
But python-minimal is always installed along with python. So
anytime python-minimal is there, foobie is there too, since python
depends on it. Right?
Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
installed without python also installed, they can also now assume that
all of python, including foobie, is there.
What am I missing?