On 2/12/21 1:42 AM, stefa...@debian.org wrote:
> Hi Thomas (2021.02.12_00:11:07_+)
>> So indeed, it's a good thing to *not* include distutils and venv by
>> default when someone installs python.
>
> ...
>
>>> I propose that we add a python3-full* metapackage for
>>> bullseye. (*We can use a
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> What I read from Elana, is that *upstream* think we have a problem. But
> do we really have one? Or are we just being influenced by upstream who
> is trying to impose a view we don't necessary share?
Or is it you that is trying to impose your view on th
Hi,
Looks like once more I've been not able to express myself clearly enough
in the first message. Hopefully, what's bellow contain *all* of my
thoughts, and that it brings value to this thread.
On 2/12/21 9:30 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> What I read
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 02:43, wrote:
> From your arguments above, it doesn't sound like the python3-full solves
> a problem you experience. So, I'm not sure why you'd be using it.
>
> If it doesn't include distutils, venv, lib2to3, etc. then it doesn't
> solve any problem we currently have, and w
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:08:14AM +0200, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> I wanted to point out that this follows the pattern set by the many other
> *-full packages in Debian, such as ruby-full.
Perhaps python3-core would be more appropriate, and python3-full can be
left for something even bigger.
So
Hi all,
Am 12.02.21 um 01:11 schrieb Thomas Goirand:
> Hi Elana,
>
> Thanks for bringing this topic in the channel, and speaking with the
> Python Steering Council, plus Mathias and Stefano. That's very much
> appreciated.
>
> On 2/11/21 7:12 PM, Elana Hashman wrote:
>> - When users install Pyth
On 2021-02-12 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, and they then may install it when they don't need it to
> consume whatever is packaged in Debian.
On 2021/02/12 11:40, Valentin Vidic wrote:
> Perhaps python3-core would be more appropriate, and python3-full can be
> left for something even bigger.
I saw some discussion about this before, and it does sound nice, but it
would require change to a few thousand packages to handle such a
transition
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:37:39PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> I saw some discussion about this before, and it does sound nice, but it
> would require change to a few thousand packages to handle such a
> transition, where adding python3-full doesn't really add work for anyone
> except maintaini
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 an
Hi,
As far as I understand, the divergence between "Python upstream" and
Debian is:
- It looks like Debian target users consuming software, users just
install a package and it works, no venv needed obviously, it always just
work, it's fantastic. Users may not even care if the program is writte
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 10:40:48 +0100, Valentin Vidic wrote:
> Perhaps python3-core would be more appropriate, and python3-full can be
> left for something even bigger.
We have a python3 package already. If I saw a python3 package and a
python3-core package, I would expect that either they're the
On 2021-02-12 16:18, Simon McVittie wrote:
> We have a python3 package already. If I saw a python3 package and a
> python3-core package, I would expect that either they're the same thing,
> or python3-core is a smaller and less fully-featured version of python3.
>
> Conversely, we already have a p
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 05:59:12PM +0200, Andrius Merkys wrote:
> On 2021-02-12 16:18, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > python3-minimal ≤ python3-core ≤ python3 ≤ python3-full
>
> +1. Exactly how I would understand these names.
I see your point too. I guess python3-full is the way to go then,
but ma
On 2/12/21 2:08 PM, Julien Palard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As far as I understand, the divergence between "Python upstream" and
> Debian is:
>
> - It looks like Debian target users consuming software, users just
> install a package and it works, no venv needed obviously, it always just
> work, it's fa
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 distrib
Hi Thomas (2021.02.12_08:10:51_+)
> > From your arguments above, it doesn't sound like the python3-full solves
> > a problem you experience. So, I'm not sure why you'd be using it.
>
> I don't think I would. And to me, Python is already "full"(y supported)
> without these. Though at least, add
Hi Thomas (2021.02.12_09:16:28_+)
I should have combined this reply with my previous one, but it didn't
thread there cleanly:
> 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, and they
Hi all,
Am 12.02.21 um 20:52 schrieb Stefano Rivera:
> This package is a dependency package, which depends on the full
> standard library of Python for Python developers. Including modules
> used only at build-time, such as venv and distutils, and modules with
> complex dependencies, such as t
19 matches
Mail list logo
