[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:
> > One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> > and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
> This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in
> Ubuntu or merely a potential issue.
> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl?   Yes, I hate
> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.
> Or, we say "we aren't going to support *every* high-level language"
> and stick to one.

There's nothing that prevents us saying "we aren't going to support
every high-level language" and stick to more than one (we already stick
to two -- sh and Perl). It just means "I'd like to write scripts in X"
alone isn't a good enough reason.

Python is the "official" language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work
they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for
example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This
seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of
Python in Essential.

The real issue here is that the original upload didn't do that; it went
through the motions without actually changing our Python packaging or
upgrading the version, so we just got all of Python as Essential. No one
wanted that.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: