Path: csiph.com!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 10:20:02 +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 09:16:46 2021 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.425 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MURPHY_DRUGS_REL8=0.02, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.105, SARE_MLH_Stock10=1.66] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -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: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18982 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/bf1dcc35-ee04-92ab-b919-ae099e61590f@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 44 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:16:28 +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:13199 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 from Elana, is that *upstream* think we have a problem. Bu= t >> 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? >=20 > Or is it you that is trying to impose your view on those users? >=20 > Let's be clear, I understand what you are saying and I mostly agree > with your view but Debian is about inclusiveness and about meeting > the needs of as many people as possible and I believe that implementing > this python3-full meta-package can only help towards this. 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. Reality is different. 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. You then end up with a variety of versions of things pulled by pip, which are quickly unmanageable. That's why we do package Python modules, and make sure they work well together (sometimes, patching them to achieve this goal). So, by all means, let's create a metapackage, and call it "python3-addons-that-upstream-thinks-make-python-full" or anything you like, but not just "python3-without-this-package-python-is-not-full", misguiding our users to install venv and distutils which they don't need if they are consuming only Python for things that we package already. I'm also concerned that this is useful at all. If someone wants to use venv, 2to3 or setuptools, I believe they will know how to fetch them... Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)