Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Joe Wreschnig <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
Yes, this is true.
> 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.
This does not scale. If each Debian derivative chooses a different
"official language", and we put each of them in Essential, then we end
up with every language in Essential.
Debian already *has* an official language for this purpose: Perl. If
Ubuntu wants to replace that with Python, it's up to them, but it
seems like a lot of work.
What I hear is *not* that Python is the official language instead of
Perl, but that it is the official language *in addition to* Perl. So
now, why? Remember, "I'd like to write scripts in X" is not a good
enough reason, so what is the reason for having two official