Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13206

Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye

Path csiph.com!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From Christian Kastner <ckk@debian.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.maint.python
Subject Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye
Date Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:20:02 +0100
Message-ID <BHFAu-8pG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <BHoJk-6G2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <BHulH-1CA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <BHuOJ-1LJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <BHBQd-673-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <BHC9A-6d9-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <BHCMi-6Fs-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To debian-python@lists.debian.org
X-Mailbox-Line From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Fri Feb 12 12:18:12 2021
Old-Return-Path <ckk@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status No, score=-5.998 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.353, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.105, SARE_MLH_Stock10=1.66] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .debian. - helo: .smtp.kvr. - helo-domain: .kvr.) FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=0; rate: -3.5
Dkim-Signature v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=20200417.ckk.user; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:References:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=7qmwSjnaCRyPNoC0BCNOKyJX7UJud523byvF7X5vyRg=; b=mhrgRBICKgvPekY/3LrizpGrrS tqiw2Qtr5TigpaHcyCXQAhG+GBzpdAQWNMAz/qstTU+5S4KmKCsT2x4Rcu5PxrbgzJyZh1icJUNVC 6MB+51kVrogtOqdpMLMbWjdpvzu2O9g6ow7Km7gdv3gAAq//N5ow7wvIQD1dTKB0n41S4f3mDFvkz kBPwK58enUh3IpQcP0r5x3dPV1YTgcLFfs4vYY0F7WEKLTqhdc+ndMexSWnbaP2E8OkayXBo3EAKJ rrrWtjNy7WdXcF+mANBF1ICHZfdaimCsMS1Zzg9EqmvNGbbGsW4U77V10NC44buxVloBCxBhymx71 0wW3qyfyNiYS9NEQcB3j9gwt8cjdbTT1p1ojx3hKFAhbfDGV6t7+chMlRQ3G0J9TTclRGMX1q4FFc HwgQAQ30CukiBjx9coo0OKKmLL5S+GKipc0XGmg+n2ZjAhH1vVVsBNXQ9KwoZ+7PlW80XyoVTkoS+ RWBEtMnrItxkSly0FTAh3TROsm0ODcjcF/SV4Di0CitVt3FTEg/RGwD3i6cCBuXLUgMtvP5yHnH0L l7V6K4Pnb/MqWZCAPWVSkmHh5BCbwnQP5TwKQ++PUdkW/o2VrrBysge+uDVNhVjcjMqV+eUb7eHzY iCFjVH7Zzy6aHoNvtRCLUkSQG6tGs0g2qp75png1s=;
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 8bit
X-Mailing-List <debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/18989
List-ID <debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL <https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/e5e14251-9c4f-bd2c-cd2e-c7d0ca9c0a95@debian.org
Approved robomod@news.nic.it
Lines 38
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:02:44 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID <e5e14251-9c4f-bd2c-cd2e-c7d0ca9c0a95@debian.org>
X-Original-References <20210211181234.GA4829@silverpine> <5c9a9365-20b9-c600-638c-6c74a024779a@debian.org> <20210212004259.dnrbzkfkszwqctpw@satie.tumbleweed.org.za> <f2d804ac-38ef-807b-0e3c-8e3bf4f4a3ab@debian.org> <YCY8woc62oYZZhtY@t14-buxy.home.ouaza.com> <bf1dcc35-ee04-92ab-b919-ae099e61590f@debian.org>
Xref csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:13206

Show key headers only | View raw


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 and a description. There's no reason for our
users to assume or believe anything at all; the facts will be right
there in front of them.

And there's no way past the synopsis with some generic name like
python3-full, or python3-minimal, or python3-dev, etc.

> 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.

How would merely having these packages installed push a user to do
anything with them?

Furthermore, I think "just testing something" is a major use case we
absolutely should support. Personally, it's the first step in my process
for packaging something for Debian, because some things are better kept
out, as I'm sure we've all made the experience.

And finally, let's face it: for the vast amount of users and even
upstreams(!), we wouldn't be pushing them towards venv, they are already
there. pip (and conda) are already the standard tools for getting Python
packages. I don't see how standing in the way of this will win us any
favors. On the contrary, I do see how this casts a unfavorable light on us.

Best,
Christian

PS: To be clear, personally, I vastly prefer Debian-packaged Python
software, and will package anything I use if it is not yet in the
archive, provided its quality is sufficiently high and there is
continued upstream support.

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Elana Hashman <ehashman@debian.org> - 2021-02-11 19:20 +0100
  Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-11 19:30 +0100
    Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 05:30 +0100
      Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 17:30 +0100
  Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 01:20 +0100
    Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye stefanor@debian.org - 2021-02-12 01:50 +0100
      Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 09:20 +0100
        Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 09:40 +0100
          Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 10:20 +0100
            Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 11:30 +0100
            Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Christian Kastner <ckk@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 13:20 +0100
            Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Julien Palard <julien@palard.fr> - 2021-02-12 14:10 +0100
              Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 17:40 +0100
              Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-02-13 23:10 +0100
            Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 21:20 +0100
        Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 21:00 +0100
          Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Michael Kesper <mkesper@schokokeks.org> - 2021-02-12 21:50 +0100
      Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net> - 2021-02-12 10:30 +0100
        Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Valentin Vidic <vvidic@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 10:50 +0100
          Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 11:40 +0100
            Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Valentin Vidic <vvidic@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 12:10 +0100
          Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 15:20 +0100
            Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Andrius Merkys <merkys@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 17:00 +0100
              Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Valentin Vidic <vvidic@debian.org> - 2021-02-12 17:20 +0100
    Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Michael Kesper <mkesper@schokokeks.org> - 2021-02-12 11:00 +0100
    Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-02-12 18:00 +0100
    Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Bastian Venthur <venthur@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 10:20 +0100
      Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 19:30 +0100
        Re: upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2021-02-16 20:20 +0100
      Python package situation Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 21:50 +0100
        Re: Python package situation Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 22:20 +0100
          Re: Python package situation Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2021-02-16 23:20 +0100
          Re: Python package situation Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2021-02-17 02:10 +0100
            Re: Python package situation Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-02-17 08:00 +0100
            Re: Python package situation Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2021-02-17 10:30 +0100

csiph-web