Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Thomas Goirand Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:20:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Fri Feb 12 08:11:09 2021 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.445 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DIGITS_LETTERS=1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.105, SARE_MLH_Stock10=1.66] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -3.5 Organization: Debian User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18980 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/f2d804ac-38ef-807b-0e3c-8e3bf4f4a3ab@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 37 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:10:51 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <20210211181234.GA4829@silverpine> <5c9a9365-20b9-c600-638c-6c74a024779a@debian.org> <20210212004259.dnrbzkfkszwqctpw@satie.tumbleweed.org.za> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:13197 On 2/12/21 1:42 AM, stefanor@debian.org wrote: > Hi Thomas (2021.02.12_00:11:07_+0000) >> 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 different name, but it must be a name not >>> currently in use.) >> >> 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. > > 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, adding "dev" in its name shows it's not for our users. > If it doesn't include distutils, venv, lib2to3, etc. then it doesn't > solve any problem we currently have, and we don't need it. The purpose > is to provide a package that gives you the entire stdlib. > > SR 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? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)