Le Jeu 19 Janvier 2006 22:47, Matt Zimmerman a écrit : > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> [2006-01-19 12:45]: > > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be > > > part of base, but not full python, and this is something that > > > python upstream explicitly objects to. > > > > Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at > > all, no? > > One of the appealing things about the Python language is their > "batteries included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard > library is available, documentation and examples are written to the > full API, etc. When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and > support requests from their user community when things don't work the > way they should. > > It is already a source of frustration to them that we don't install > python-dev with python. IMHO, python-minimal has not to be a developpement environment that is viable as-is, but only what is needed to run the scripts that need it. That has to be stated clearly in the description of the package, so that nobody would assume anything about it. Honnestly, I would be really surprised that we can't find a consensus here, if it's needed one day (which currently isn't in Debian if I've followed that thread correctly enough). Ubuntu does not AFAICT the same size requirements as debian do for base, and I really think that python upstream can understand that the *full* python suite on a embeded device just does not makes sense. To me, this looks like a bad excuse. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp47K2sW5d5R.pgp
Description: PGP signature