Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

[Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>]

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The compromise we struck with upstream was that we would not give
> the user a system with a "broken" Python.


So upstream objects to the separate packaging of python-minimal unless
all of python is installed when python-minimal is installed (which in
Ubuntu's case is: always) unless the user takes special action to
prevent this.  Hmm.

Given that Debian does not have python in base and that some Debian
packagers would like to make use of python-minimal, and Debian
presumably does not want to make python-minimal Essential: yes, I'd
suggest that a different way be sought for satisfying upstream.

I'll assume that python2.4-minimal Recommending: python2.4 won't be
enough.

How about this?  The current python2.4-minimal package contains
/usr/bin/python2.4.  We would move this to /usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter
so that it is no longer present on the standard search path.  The full
python2.4 package would contain a symlink /usr/bin/python2.4 ->
/usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter to make the interpreter available on the
path.  python-minimal Depends on python2.4-minimal and contains the
symlink /usr/bin/python -> /usr/bin/python2.4.  In addition it would
contain the symlink /usr/lib/python/interpreter ->
/usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter.  Packages that currently Depend on
python but use only minimal functionality could Depend on python-minimal
but they would have to run python using /usr/lib/python/interpreter.
The stripped down python interpreter would be "hidden" from command-line
users but would still be available for use by packaged programs.


Thomas Bushnell wrote:
> Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential?
> Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly?


   http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=debian-devel&m=113768382100129&w=2
-- 
Thomas Hood