Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:14:19AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> If you won't acknowledge that, then know that upstream also object to the
> name "python-base" for something which has a stripped-down standard library.
Both pythol-minimal and python-base sound to something an end user would
expect to contain a minimal, but working, python environment from end user
POV.
I would go for a name that clearly discourages an end user from thinking
that (python-minlib, python-installerlib ... other better names).
Not to mention that description should heavily discourage end users from
thinking that way.
Suggestion from Thomas Hood seems good to me, that means you are not
installing python, just some elements you need, and you are not claiming to
have installed python since 'python' is not available as that in the
search path.
--
Agustin
Reply to: