Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye
On 2/12/21 1:42 AM, stefanor@debian.org wrote:
> Hi Thomas (2021.02.12_00:11:07_+0000)
>> So indeed, it's a good thing to *not* include distutils and venv by
>> default when someone installs python.
>
> ...
>
>>> I propose that we add a python3-full* metapackage for
>>> bullseye. (*We can use a different name, but it must be a name not
>>> currently in use.)
>>
>> Please do not add distutils, venv and lib2to3 in this python3-full
>> metapackage. IMO that's falling into a design that isn't Debian. This
>> would probably be best in a "python3-dev-full" or something similar, as
>> from the distribution perspective, we see them as developer use only.
>> Don't confuse our users so that they install something they don't need.
>
> From your arguments above, it doesn't sound like the python3-full solves
> a problem you experience. So, I'm not sure why you'd be using it.
I don't think I would. And to me, Python is already "full"(y supported)
without these. Though at least, adding "dev" in its name shows it's not
for our users.
> If it doesn't include distutils, venv, lib2to3, etc. then it doesn't
> solve any problem we currently have, and we don't need it. The purpose
> is to provide a package that gives you the entire stdlib.
>
> SR
What I read from Elana, is that *upstream* think we have a problem. But
do we really have one? Or are we just being influenced by upstream who
is trying to impose a view we don't necessary share?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: