Ben: On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote: > [...] >> I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was >> already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and >> that's before we save on pruning away libgdb. I don't think I'd be going >> out on a limb to suggest this will be of benefit to far more people than >> the number who'll need python scripts to use gdb. Am I? >> >> Really, what am I missing here? > > What you're missing is that gdb's scripting facilities were pathetic, > and Python integration finally fixes that. While that's nice to know, I personally don't script Python and wouldn't want to have to install it on a restricted environment just for a feature I don't use. It's paying for a feature that isn't necessary, so I understand Ron's frustration here.
Ideally, this sounds like something that should be fixed in coordination with upstream -- perhaps asking if they could dynamically load Python libraries so as to use the feature if the right stuff is available, or otherwise fall back without increasing the requirements of the gdb package. > > Ben. > > -- > Ben Hutchings > Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
