On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:06:39PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
> > Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 15:24 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > > This is the right direction, and adding support for extensions makes
> > > this complete. Does your proposal allow rebuilding these p
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
>> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
>> installed without python also installed, the
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you
> guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by
> the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full
> python som
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:09:30PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
> > there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
> > installed without pyt
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
> installed without python also installed, they can also now assume that
> all of python, inclu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > The difference between "installed" ("was installed initially") and
> > "installed" ("is installed now"). The compromise we struck with upstream
> > was that we would not give the user a system with a "broken" Python. If
> > they c
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok
* David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:58]:
> For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for breaking
> the standard library in to its component parts and not installing it all by
> default. This problem has been largely abrogated as of late, but I'd rather
> not see
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> > > not us.
> >
> >
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> > not us.
>
> Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
Ah, ok
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but
> not us.
Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > > of base, but not full pytho
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> > of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> > upstream explicitly objects to.
Le Jeu 19 Janvier 2006 22:47, Matt Zimmerman a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be
> > > part of base, but not full python, and th
* Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]:
> Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part
> of base, but not full python, and this is something that python
> upstream explicitly objects to.
Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, n
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
>
> a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
>that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind)
> b) include only the modules
Colin Watson wrote:
> FWIW the relevant design docs from when this was done in Ubuntu are
> here:
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EssentialPython (requirements)
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PythonInEssential (details)
>
> The rationale for the set of included modules is in the latter, and was
> basi
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:31 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Some reasons:
> > >
> > > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported
> > > back
> >
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
> python. That is a "ease of development" helper for ubuntu.
All of those can be done today using dependencies.
.config scripts, for example, cannot.
--
- mdz
--
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for
> > > programs
> > > i
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [2006-01-19 19:21:07]:
> > > In Ubuntu, we've split the package in
> > > order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are
> > > part
> > > of base).
> > Then what's the benefit of having pyt
* Anthony Towns [2006-01-19 19:21:07]:
> > In Ubuntu, we've split the package in
> > order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are part
> > of base).
>
> Then what's the benefit of having python(-minimal) be essential at all?
you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and p
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for
> > programs
> > in the base system
> > * allowing us to provide python early on installs
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Some reasons:
> >
> > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back
> > and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubuntu mig
24 matches
Mail list logo
