Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
pe, 2006-02-17 kello 10:58 +0900, Miles Bader kirjoitti:
> "Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > actual topic of the discussion, just shut up.
> Oh get a life. It's perfectly relevant to talk about the qualities of
> the languages involved.
A comparative discussion about languages might be useful and productive.
A discussion with arguments like "Efficient, perhaps, but _elegant_?!?
HAhahahahah1hahah3$I17-e87" is not such a discussion.
The point of this thread has, at least in theory, been whether Python
(in full or in part) should become an essential package so that various
packaging scripts could be written in it. I suspect that all
constructive arguments have been made already and that the consensus is
"no, not now, maybe later when it's OK to make the set of essential
packages bigger". In other words, status quo continues, the same one
that Debian has had for a decade or so.
Now can we please not perpetrate this thread anymore?
Communication via acronyms is rfs.