Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite
> > > some key parts of the system, like the init scripts or adduser, in
> > > python. However, if the proponent knows from the beginning the
> > > implementation wouldn't be accepted because of the language it is
> > > written in, you can't expect him to start working on it.
> >
> > What's this "wouldn't be accepted" nonsense? Are you seriously suggesting
> > that, if someone rewrote adduser in Python, that it would be rejected by the
> > ftpmasters *because* it was written in Python?
>
> Yes, this is because all dependencies of a package must be of equal or
> higher priority. Having adduser depending on python would imply to
> increase the priority of python.
Call it 'adduser-python' then. Show that it's better (oh, for an objective
criterion) and it'll get switched. Not exactly rocket science. You're
going to have to do that anyway, even *if* python is essential, because
nobody, even the most die-hard Pythonista, would be dumb enough to call for
tossing out the current adduser implementation for a Python one until the
new one had undergone some fairly massive testing in production.
> > > Putting python in the set of required packages today would simply be a
> > > waste of resources. But accepting the idea of putting it in *if* a good
> > > enough application shows up is the necessary step to have the
> > > applications show up. Some people here are refusing it by principle.
> >
> > They're refusing it on the principle of "the cost/benefit ratio sucks". Not
> > a bad principle, as things go.
>
> The arguments I've heard most are not about that ratio.
You made the argument.
- Matt
Reply to: