On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:58:36 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote: > > On 25-02-2021 07:17, Stefano Rivera wrote: > > TL;DR: Debian heard of some upstream Python grumpyness about our > > standard library splits, recently. > > We have more upstreams being grumpy how we handle things in Debian. > > > This is all very badly timed for the > > freeze. > > Exactly. To be clear, we acted as soon as upstream attempted to engage Debian. This was not raised directly to Debian until early January, when the freeze had already begun. Hence, our attempts to determine what would be feasible and not overly disruptive before and after freeze. We have been moving as quickly as possible. > > Including a python3-full and python3.x-full packages, that Depends on > > the entire stdlib, is a compromise position to help them to support > > Python users on Debian (and derivative) platforms. > > This is the piece we're missing. What is it in Debian that makes this > support difficult? Why do we need to rush this into bullseye now? Stefano has written more at length about this in the previous reply, but tl;dr: when developers `apt install python`, they tend to expect the full Python standard library to be present as following the upstream documentation, and not a split. Right now, we are failing those users by asking them to figure out which packages to install on their own. By adding a metapackage "python3-full" which installs everything automatically to match the upstream expectations, we will provide a much smoother and improved user experience. Since this is merely a metapackage and no packages are permitted to depend on it directly, it should be a minimally invasive/disruptive change, even during freeze. We are basically adding a user-friendly alias. > Also, that message 00035 mentions two items that were considered as too > disruptive. Does fixing only the third item really warrant the upload > now, considering it seems to hint that you'll want to rename things > again after the release: > """ > - It was requested that we differentiate between "system" Python and > what upstream considers core Python. A package rename (e.g. python3 -> > python3-system) will confuse everyone and take multiple releases to > implement, and cannot be targeted until bookworm at the earliest. > """ Yes, because there is no guarantee that we will actually make these changes as requested. I mentioned them for completeness (to document all the discussions we had), not necessarily because there's been any concrete decision to act on them. I think python3-full is an obvious improvement over the status quo, and a minimally invasive change to introduce in freeze. Any other Python packaging changes are is up for debate. - e
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature