Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye
On 12.02.21 10:16, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I mostly agree to add a metapackage. I just don't agree with the choice
> of package name. It makes our user believe that Python isn't "full"
> without it
I think you are reading waaay too much into just this name. The package
will also have a synopsis and a description. There's no reason for our
users to assume or believe anything at all; the facts will be right
there in front of them.
And there's no way past the synopsis with some generic name like
python3-full, or python3-minimal, or python3-dev, etc.
> Also, it's a disservice to push our users into the direction of using
> venv which is very ugly way to use Python in a Debian system, outside of
> just testing something.
How would merely having these packages installed push a user to do
anything with them?
Furthermore, I think "just testing something" is a major use case we
absolutely should support. Personally, it's the first step in my process
for packaging something for Debian, because some things are better kept
out, as I'm sure we've all made the experience.
And finally, let's face it: for the vast amount of users and even
upstreams(!), we wouldn't be pushing them towards venv, they are already
there. pip (and conda) are already the standard tools for getting Python
packages. I don't see how standing in the way of this will win us any
favors. On the contrary, I do see how this casts a unfavorable light on us.
Best,
Christian
PS: To be clear, personally, I vastly prefer Debian-packaged Python
software, and will package anything I use if it is not yet in the
archive, provided its quality is sufficiently high and there is
continued upstream support.
Reply to: