Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye
Hi Thomas (2021.02.12_09:16:28_+0000)
I should have combined this reply with my previous one, but it didn't
thread there cleanly:
> 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, and they then may install it when they don't need it to
> consume whatever is packaged in Debian. Reality is different.
The reality is that you're conflating two statements there:
1. Python isn't "full" without it.
2. Users may believe that they need this to run things that are
packaged in Debian.
I'd say 1 is true, but users believing 2 would be incorrect. As I said
in my other mail, I hope this can be dealt with in the description. And
there's certainly no harm in users making this mistake, beyond
installing unnecessary junk.
We split the Python standard library up into multiple binary packages,
for a variety of reasons, and when you install python3, you don't get it
all. Developers outside of Debian's sphere of influence won't appreciate
those splits and software they write won't be expecting them. We can
deal with this within Debian, but not when users install 3rd party
software directly.
While we may have the goal of packaging all useful software in Debian,
the reality is that this is only ever a goal, constantly unachievable.
We serve our users better when we make it easy to extend beyond Debian.
SR
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 415 683 3272
Reply to: