Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:42:09 -0800, Russ Allbery <email@example.com> said:
> Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the
>> base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first
>> one to support that inclusion.
> Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in
> the base system and cannot be currently because Python isn't
> included? Be specific.
And provide some rationale why these scripts can't be
rewritten in sh or Perl (or CDBS :).
> A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the
> way that Python would enter base; without that, I think this
> discussion is largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into
> argumentative corners that can only result in hurt feelings.
A killer application that is required by dpkg (which was the
original reason for essential) or is needed to install other packages
(the old meaning of base).
Such beasts are often evolutionary, not revolutionary.
> Personally, I write both Perl and Python, and if some fantastic core
> component of Debian ended up being written in Objective CAML, I
> think that would be a great excuse to learn Objective CAML. But
> bickering over which language is best isn't going to get us
> There's a pure resource tradeoff involved, and any language,
> including Perl, has to pass a cost/benefit analysis that involves
> real applications we want to run in base. Obviously, once the
> language is already in base and is already being used, the
> cost/benefit analysis reverses and one instead starts looking at the
> cost of removing it. The inherent merits of the language rarely end
> up being a decisive factor.
BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing. Seymour
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C