Re: Bug#560786: gdb: Please make the python dependency optional
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 02:26:53AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was
> > already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and
> > that's before we save on pruning away libgdb. I don't think I'd be going
> > out on a limb to suggest this will be of benefit to far more people than
> > the number who'll need python scripts to use gdb. Am I?
> >
> > Really, what am I missing here?
>
> What you're missing is that gdb's scripting facilities were pathetic,
> and Python integration finally fixes that.
Nothing I've requested or suggested will do anything to take that away
from you though. On the contrary, if this really is a useful feature,
then I fully expect other people will want to add scripting facilities
in all of the popular dialects. And I think that would be great.
Debian should have the most powerful tools that we are able to build
for it. But we also have a long tradition of resolving conflicting
needs by putting choice back in the hands of users.
You've put a case for a certain minority class of users, I've put a case
for another. And they are clearly orthogonal, excepting that they both
use some subset of features in gdb, so neither diminishes the validity of
the other. I'm offering to support the case I see as being important, so
the question that's really important is what is the best way to do that?
I can send Daniel a patch to provide a minimal build from the same source,
or I can maintain it independently if it's a burden he doesn't want to
carry. Or I can do something different if people have better ideas.
I don't see what is so troublesome about that, it's how Debian works when
it's working at its best. People who need things share their work on that
with others that also need it.
Daniel, sorry for the flood, just let me know which way you'd prefer to go.
Cheers,
Ron
Reply to: