Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 02:13:57AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 janvier 2006 à 12:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another
> > scripting language to the set of Essential packages.
>
> Personally I don't care about the Essential status.
Then what is this whole thread about?
> However we have to accept the use of python in more base and required
> packages. This brings python in as a dependency, that's all. But it
> has the same consequences as making it essential. If, as it has
> already been suggested, software like init or adduser was replaced by
> python implementations, would they be rejected?
Yes, because python is not Essential.
Personally, I'd prefer to throw out perl rather than to add python. Our
set of Essential packages is bloated already as it is.
> > Sure, it'd be nice; but then tomorrow someone else will come along
> > who will claim that Python is sucky and that Ruby is Teh Thing, and
> > we can start this all over from the start again.
>
> I hear this argument against python all the time, and frankly, if people
> were listening to such arguments, we'd all be programming COBOL on VMS.
There is a difference between "COBOL on VMS" and "Python vs Ruby".
Indeed, there is a very strong following of people programming in
Python; but the same is true for Ruby. So why add Python and not Ruby?
And where would you stop requesting for more scripting languages to be
added?
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: