On 2021-02-12 01:11:07 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] > Please do not add distutils, venv and lib2to3 in this python3-full > metapackage. IMO that's falling into a design that isn't Debian. This > would probably be best in a "python3-dev-full" or something similar, as > from the distribution perspective, we see them as developer use only. > Don't confuse our users so that they install something they don't need. [...]
I'm failing to see the distinction here. Who are the direct "users" of the current python3 package if not developers (i.e. those who would explicitly `apt install python3` on their systems if it weren't already present)? Any "python3 users" who aren't developers are getting the python3 package as a dependency of some Python-based software they're using, they're not going out and installing the python3 package on their own. The proposal already indicated that no other packages should declare dependencies on python3-full anyway, so its only consumers will be people manually installing it... that is, developers of Python-based software, or people wanting to run software which isn't packaged in Debian (which you seem to consider synonymous with being a software developer for some reason, but I'll go along with it for the sake of argument). So it seems like you're saying the people who manually install python3 will be confused by the presence of python3-full and install it instead, and accidentally get "software developer tools" when they do so. But who else is specifically choosing to install a Python interpreter if not people writing and running non-packaged Python source? -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
