Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > 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.
>
> For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for breaking
> the standard library in to its component parts and not installing it all by
> default. This problem has been largely abrogated as of late, but I'd rather
> not see us piss off the python community for making a similar mistake.
>
> That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> not us.
>
> - David Nusinow
Hi Debian folks,
Debian seems to like to support embedded devices and allow folks to
install as little as possible in/for a base install. And in that vein,
the discussion is on 'essential' packages. I can understand if a whole
language community got pissed if when you install a standard-level
packages like 'perl' and then it was missing pieces, but aren't Debian devs
allowed to design packages for our philosophical/project goals in regards to
a 'mininal' install when we design an 'essential' packages? If Ubuntu's
goals are to heavily use/promote Python and feel its 'essential' to
include the whole shebang and not part, then that's their goals and its
fine by me.
Giving away code (GPL or otherwise) to the world is done for many
reasons. Aparently some folks are more concerned about how their work
is used. As with the attribution in .debs, folks want the users to not
associate possible (as judged by them) 'bad'/'unofficial'/'off
project'/'different' work with their projects. But the perl folks don't
seem to have that objection! x-) (at least none have spoken yet!)
cheers,
Kev
- --
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
`$' $'
$ $ _
,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$$$$$b $,d$$b
,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$ggggg$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $ $
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $ $
`Y$$P'$. `Y$$$$P $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD0JFJv8UcC1qRZVMRAmvJAJ9AVNJDhdpKRYO2bcCj80u084hPVQCfXnn3
qCUzzKlIHj8v4eieYXR1JvE=
=lEuL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: