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.
