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

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

Don't reply to me directly. I should not have to tell you this.

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 13:03 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > 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.

We can burn those bridges when we come to them. Right now there's only
one such distribution, with one such language, which has already done
all the work to strip it down to a small size.

Unless you expect some derived Debian distribution to use Scheme some
day, this is sophistry. If you really do expect that, it's insanity.

> 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
> languages?

I don't manage Ubuntu policy, nor do I want to. I am a Debian developer
interested in Debian. The argument for Debian is not "I'd like to write
scripts in X" but "There is this large body of people writing scripts in
X, and it'd be nice if we could work with them."
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

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

Reply to: