Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:55:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. I'm in that category too. Perl has always looked crazy to me. Scheme, anyone? Amen to that, except for the scheme, python in essential is enough for me, thank you. a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks too complex and cryptic to us. Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will happen later is pure speculation. I'm in that category too. Perl has always looked crazy to me. Scheme, anyone? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 21:52 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This (...) Boot speed and python does not really sound a match... Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:12:35PM +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 21:52 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This (...) Boot speed and python does not really sound a match... Surprisingly, python is often faster than perl for the same task. Boot speed and perl does not really sound a match either. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:16:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian does with regard to python-minimal. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and I think I've done that thoroughly now. Are there any examples of .config's or base packages that use python in python? Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in Ubuntu or merely a potential issue. Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Or, we say we aren't going to support *every* high-level language and stick to one. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?) No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to writing any such scripts. Are there .config scripts written in other languages? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:14:19AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: If you won't acknowledge that, then know that upstream also object to the name python-base for something which has a stripped-down standard library. Both pythol-minimal and python-base sound to something an end user would expect to contain a minimal, but working, python environment from end user POV. I would go for a name that clearly discourages an end user from thinking that (python-minlib, python-installerlib ... other better names). Not to mention that description should heavily discourage end users from thinking that way. Suggestion from Thomas Hood seems good to me, that means you are not installing python, just some elements you need, and you are not claiming to have installed python since 'python' is not available as that in the search path. -- Agustin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Martin Michlmayr wrote: I definitely agree we should listen to the Python community, Well, my *personal* view is this: I agree that it is highly desirable that the python package is the entire thing, with all batteries included. I'm uncertain what to think about offering systems that only have a minimal python, which would have python not installed, yet /usr/bin/python present. On the one hand, I think it is fair to require people to install the python package if they want Python. OTOH, it is likely also confusing to tell people that they need to install python even though /usr/bin/python is already present. I cannot guess how many support requests we would get from people which fail to install the python package. We surely get a lot of requests from people asking why some Python program fails, just because some Linux distributions manage to install an incomplete library even though the user requested the python package of that distribution. In that category, the most frequent issue is that people cannot run distutils applications, either because the entire distutils library is missing, or because the header files are missing. The next most frequent issue is that people complain they cannot run IDLE (because Tkinter was not installed). Regards, Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in Ubuntu or merely a potential issue. Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Or, we say we aren't going to support *every* high-level language and stick to one. There's nothing that prevents us saying we aren't going to support every high-level language and stick to more than one (we already stick to two -- sh and Perl). It just means I'd like to write scripts in X alone isn't a good enough reason. Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of Python in Essential. The real issue here is that the original upload didn't do that; it went through the motions without actually changing our Python packaging or upgrading the version, so we just got all of Python as Essential. No one wanted that. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in Ubuntu or merely a potential issue. Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. Or, we say we aren't going to support *every* high-level language and stick to one. We aren't going to support every high-level language, but we do support more than one in Ubuntu. This, of course, has no particular bearing on whether Debian follows suit. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's nothing that prevents us saying we aren't going to support every high-level language and stick to more than one (we already stick to two -- sh and Perl). It just means I'd like to write scripts in X alone isn't a good enough reason. Yes, this is true. Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of Python in Essential. This does not scale. If each Debian derivative chooses a different official language, and we put each of them in Essential, then we end up with every language in Essential. Debian already *has* an official language for this purpose: Perl. If Ubuntu wants to replace that with Python, it's up to them, but it seems like a lot of work. What I hear is *not* that Python is the official language instead of Perl, but that it is the official language *in addition to* Perl. So now, why? Remember, I'd like to write scripts in X is not a good enough reason, so what is the reason for having two official languages? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that I would like to write scripts in X is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential. It sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood correctly.? Or, we say we aren't going to support *every* high-level language and stick to one. We aren't going to support every high-level language, but we do support more than one in Ubuntu. The question is, why? Is it just we want to use Python too? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:21:34PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This (...) Boot speed and python does not really sound a match... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that I would like to write scripts in X is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential. It sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood correctly.? I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian does with regard to python-minimal. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and I think I've done that thoroughly now. No, really, I'm trying to understand Ubuntu's reasoning here, and not just the actions undertaken. I understand the actions, but I don't understand exactly what the reasons are, and it would help me. The reasons you gave are different than what Joe Wreschnig said; he spoke of Python being Ubuntu's official language and whatnot, though what he meant is not that Ubuntu has replaced Perl with Python, but that Python has been added in. I can understand We like Python more than Perl, so we replaced Perl with Python, though that would be a lot of work and it isn't what the actual reasoning was anyway. It seems to be simply that one more official language has been added. Personally, I can't stand either Python or Perl. This gives me a different perspective. It's not about liking one or the other, but about the need for Debian to congeal as a whole on a single choice, lest we need to have every choice. So I'm wondering, what are the restraints upon the same things at Ubuntu? Is it just a flat we like Python and Perl and nothing else or is it we add any language that there is demand for among Ubuntu people or what? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Don't reply to me directly. I should not have to tell you this. On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 13:03 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Python is the official language of Ubuntu. If we want to merge work they're doing (Anthony Towns mentioned their work on boot speed, for example) it's a good idea to structure our Python like theirs is. This seems to be a good reason to consider python-minimal and some form of Python in Essential. This does not scale. If each Debian derivative chooses a different official language, and we put each of them in Essential, then we end up with every language in Essential. We can burn those bridges when we come to them. Right now there's only one such distribution, with one such language, which has already done all the work to strip it down to a small size. Unless you expect some derived Debian distribution to use Scheme some day, this is sophistry. If you really do expect that, it's insanity. What I hear is *not* that Python is the official language instead of Perl, but that it is the official language *in addition to* Perl. So now, why? Remember, I'd like to write scripts in X is not a good enough reason, so what is the reason for having two official languages? I don't manage Ubuntu policy, nor do I want to. I am a Debian developer interested in Debian. The argument for Debian is not I'd like to write scripts in X but There is this large body of people writing scripts in X, and it'd be nice if we could work with them. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate perl too, but really, the argument hey, people like Python too implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that I would like to write scripts in X is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential. It sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood correctly.? I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian does with regard to python-minimal. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and I think I've done that thoroughly now. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We can burn those bridges when we come to them. Right now there's only one such distribution, with one such language, which has already done all the work to strip it down to a small size. Scalability problems do not happen because someone failed to stop the tenth extra case. They happen because nobody stopped the second. Unless you expect some derived Debian distribution to use Scheme some day, this is sophistry. If you really do expect that, it's insanity. I once thought that it was insanity to expect Python to be in broad use. I was wrong. I don't manage Ubuntu policy, nor do I want to. I am a Debian developer interested in Debian. The argument for Debian is not I'd like to write scripts in X but There is this large body of people writing scripts in X, and it'd be nice if we could work with them. Yes, I understand. I'm trying to understand--from a Debian perspective--whether there are any limits, or it really just is lots of people are writing scripts in X? And, how many scripts are we talking about anyway? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Joe Wreschnig writes: On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I don't know what's actually in (or more importantly not in) python2.4-minimal though. I'm eyeballing right now. Things that jump out at me: * No character encoding, translation, or locale handling. * A little oddly, loss of shutil. * No sockets. The first one seems like it would be a show-stopper to me, unless we expect programs in the base system to only deal with ASCII. This is a fairly large addition to package, too. The second can easily be fixed; possibly just oversight. It's a small module and gives Python equivalents of cp -r, rm -r, and mv. The third seems like something software in base may want to do; I mention it specifically because perl-base include socket support. Colin already mentioned that the socket modules are in -minimal. shutil looks reasonable. encodings and locale handling come with a prize: a size of about 3MB, which would more than double the size of -minimal (2.4 ships with the cjk codecs). Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Joey Hess writes: 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 basically done by taking each module in perl-base and mapping it to its Python equivalent. FWIW, that's a fairly strange way to do it, since modules are added/removed from perl-base as needed by the perl-using programs in the base system. No, if you do look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PythonInEssential, you will notice: Do not include: * _ssl, pickle, cPickle, pickle ends up as a dependency of subprocess. For example, perl-base includes Data::Dumper because debconf (used to) use it, not because there's any other particular reason to include that module in base, and I've just asked that Data::Dumper be removed, so including its equivilant (pickle) in python-base on that rationalle is decidely strange. Ubuntu did use perl-base just as a starting point. 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 needed by the package(s). We once had a python-base package and got complaints about the name being misleading. Besides that, I got questions from Debian only developers and Debian users to have the minimal package in Debian as well. That does not look misleading, as long as the name implies that you cannot expect a complete python installation. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: 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 us piss off the python community for making a similar mistake. I believe the problem with the ruby situation wasn't that the monolithic ruby distribution was split up; but that there was no clear way to install the lot in one go, without prior knowledge of what the whole distribution was: a simple meta-package with the correct dependencies was all that was missing. -- Jon Dowland http://alcopop.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential? Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly? Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to express such a dependency relationship, and so only Essential packages can be relied upon to be available. One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:22:53AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential? Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly? Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to express such a dependency relationship, and so only Essential packages can be relied upon to be available. One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:52:09AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?) No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to writing any such scripts. Well, technically a .config script that fails because /usr/bin/python doesn't exist would get a second chance when the postinst runs, just like any other config script failure... so you could get away with this just using a Depends:, you just lose pre-configuration support ;) The python bindings for debconf are, of all places, in the 'debconf' package. Hurray! :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?) No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to writing any such scripts. The python bindings for debconf are, of all places, in the 'debconf' package. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Matt Zimmerman wrote: 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 needed by the package(s). 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. It implies no such thing. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Kevin Mark wrote: Giving away code (GPL or otherwise) to the world is done for many reasons. Aparently some folks are more concerned about how their work is used. As with the attribution in .debs, folks want the users to not associate possible (as judged by them) 'bad'/'unofficial'/'off project'/'different' work with their projects. But the perl folks don't seem to have that objection! x-) (at least none have spoken yet!) perl is priority standard and so it is part of default Debian installs unless the user explcitly asks aptitude not to install it. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Matt Zimmerman wrote: 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 needed by the package(s). 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. It implies no such thing. If you won't acknowledge that, then know that upstream also object to the name python-base for something which has a stripped-down standard library. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 might do on improving boot up will require python-minimal This would be nice. Right now it's accomplished through patches Ubuntu makes to dh_python and cdbs. They'd probably like to drop those. As a point of information, Ubuntu doesn't patch dh_python at present, and I don't see any Python-related changes in cdbs at the moment either. I don't know what's actually in (or more importantly not in) python2.4-minimal though. I'm eyeballing right now. Things that jump out at me: * No character encoding, translation, or locale handling. * A little oddly, loss of shutil. * No sockets. 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 basically done by taking each module in perl-base and mapping it to its Python equivalent. The third seems like something software in base may want to do; I mention it specifically because perl-base include socket support. Socket support does seem to be there: $ dpkg -c /mirror/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-minimal_2.4.2-1ubuntu2_i386.deb | grep socket -rw-r--r-- root/root 49608 2006-01-17 12:59:02 ./usr/lib/python2.4/lib-dynload/_socket.so -rw-r--r-- root/root 12876 2006-01-17 12:58:18 ./usr/lib/python2.4/socket.py Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [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 postinsts etc in python. That is a ease of development helper for ubuntu. how agressive does debian use it's perl in this regard? i think hardly at all. i would welcome to either kick both higher level scrip languages out (to shrink essential) and rewrite stuff like adduser in c or c++ or see if we cant really use perl (or perhaps even python-minimal) more for scripting in these places. it is an underutilized resource currently and would be a win in readability, structure and even speed. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubuntu might do on improving boot up will require python-minimal This would be nice. Right now it's accomplished through patches Ubuntu makes to dh_python and cdbs. They'd probably like to drop those. As a point of information, Ubuntu doesn't patch dh_python at present, and I don't see any Python-related changes in cdbs at the moment either. Oh, hrm. So packages that need to use python-minimal manually handle their Python dependencies? That seems like a significant step backwards, in terms of handling transitions. $ dpkg -c /mirror/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-minimal_2.4.2-1ubuntu2_i386.deb | grep socket -rw-r--r-- root/root 49608 2006-01-17 12:59:02 ./usr/lib/python2.4/lib-dynload/_socket.so -rw-r--r-- root/root 12876 2006-01-17 12:58:18 ./usr/lib/python2.4/socket.py D'oh. Apparently I'm blind. Thanks. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 basically done by taking each module in perl-base and mapping it to its Python equivalent. FWIW, that's a fairly strange way to do it, since modules are added/removed from perl-base as needed by the perl-using programs in the base system. For example, perl-base includes Data::Dumper because debconf (used to) use it, not because there's any other particular reason to include that module in base, and I've just asked that Data::Dumper be removed, so including its equivilant (pickle) in python-base on that rationalle is decidely strange. 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 needed by the package(s). -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 needed by the package(s). 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. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
* 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, no? -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 this is something that python upstream explicitly objects to. Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no? One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and support requests from their user community when things don't work the way they should. It is already a source of frustration to them that we don't install python-dev with python. IMHO, python-minimal has not to be a developpement environment that is viable as-is, but only what is needed to run the scripts that need it. That has to be stated clearly in the description of the package, so that nobody would assume anything about it. Honnestly, I would be really surprised that we can't find a consensus here, if it's needed one day (which currently isn't in Debian if I've followed that thread correctly enough). Ubuntu does not AFAICT the same size requirements as debian do for base, and I really think that python upstream can understand that the *full* python suite on a embeded device just does not makes sense. To me, this looks like a bad excuse. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp744tnc1Bg5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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. Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no? One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and support requests from their user community when things don't work the way they should. It is already a source of frustration to them that we don't install python-dev with python. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 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, no? One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and support requests from their user community when things don't work the way they should. 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 us piss off the python community for making a similar mistake. That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but not us. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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. Then why bother with the package at all then? Why not just make all of python Essential: yes? - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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. Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base. Ah, ok. Then why bother with the package at all then? Why not just make all of python Essential: yes? Because it has additional dependencies on packages which are not Essential: yes, and because -minimal is much smaller (if someone explicitly uninstalls it, along with the standard packages which depend on it), we can assume they are accepting the consequences). -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
* 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 us piss off the python community for making a similar mistake. I definitely agree we should listen to the Python community, especially with the lovely Martin v. Löwis doing so much good work for us. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 for Ubuntu to do this but not us. Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base. Ah, ok. Then why bother with the package at all then? Why not just make all of python Essential: yes? Because it has additional dependencies on packages which are not Essential: yes, and because -minimal is much smaller (if someone explicitly uninstalls it, along with the standard packages which depend on it), we can assume they are accepting the consequences). I'm confused now. Python depends on, say, foobie, where foobie is not Essential, and is quite large. But python-minimal is always installed along with python. So anytime python-minimal is there, foobie is there too, since python depends on it. Right? 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, including foobie, is there. What am I missing? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 create one on their own, that's their business (and they could strip it down themselves anyway). 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 somehow. Is this correct? No, they install the full system by default (ie, python and python-minimal both get installed by debootstrap as part of base), but allow it to be stripped down to python-minimal later if the user wants to. In warty there was no python-minimal, and python2.3 was installed along with apt (pri: important), in hoary python-minimal was essential, and installed with dpkg (pri: required) and python was installed with apt; in breezy it's the same as hoary, with the exception that buildds only get python-minimal; dapper is the same as breezy. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 somehow. Is this correct? python is part of the base system in Ubuntu. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
debian-python Cc'ed On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:02:32PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes, not to support stripped-down Python installations. So why does Debian need/want python-minimal? (This is a question mostly for Matthias, I think, but if you know the answer that's great.) 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 might do on improving boot up will require python-minimal * 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 to make users happier I don't know what's actually in (or more importantly not in) python2.4-minimal though. I think unless there's a bit more discussion about this I'll remove the python-minimal package, and encourage Joerg to be a bit more careful before accepting it again. If it's not going to be in base or required, or even more minimal than python2.3, I can't see much point to keeping it around. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: debian-python Cc'ed On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:02:32PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes, not to support stripped-down Python installations. So why does Debian need/want python-minimal? (This is a question mostly for Matthias, I think, but if you know the answer that's great.) 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 might do on improving boot up will require python-minimal But it really doesn't provide compatibility with Ubuntu unless it's Essential, given that no packages from Ubuntu are going to be depending on it (being Essential)? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: debian-python Cc'ed On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:02:32PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes, not to support stripped-down Python installations. So why does Debian need/want python-minimal? (This is a question mostly for Matthias, I think, but if you know the answer that's great.) 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 might do on improving boot up will require python-minimal This would be nice. Right now it's accomplished through patches Ubuntu makes to dh_python and cdbs. They'd probably like to drop those. * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for programs in the base system I wouldn't mind this, but it does seem to be somewhat against the definition of base. * allowing us to provide python early on installs to make users happier This feels weak to me; it applies equally well to any language a user might want. I don't know what's actually in (or more importantly not in) python2.4-minimal though. I'm eyeballing right now. Things that jump out at me: * No character encoding, translation, or locale handling. * A little oddly, loss of shutil. * No sockets. The first one seems like it would be a show-stopper to me, unless we expect programs in the base system to only deal with ASCII. This is a fairly large addition to package, too. The second can easily be fixed; possibly just oversight. It's a small module and gives Python equivalents of cp -r, rm -r, and mv. The third seems like something software in base may want to do; I mention it specifically because perl-base include socket support. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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 to make users happier Please note that it is against upstream's explicit wishes for -minimal to be installed for users as part of a package selection which does not also include the full python package. In Ubuntu, we've split the package in order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are part of base). I don't know what's actually in (or more importantly not in) python2.4-minimal though. We basically reviewed the available modules and picked out the ones that we thought would be useful in an Essential context, with a goal of having no external non-Essential dependencies. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Anthony Towns writes: On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote: I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy, this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debian-devel and consensus is reached, but I couldn't find that discussion in the list archives. Joerg approved it at 09:50:15 2006/01/15, after Doko uploaded a new python-defaults package (-4). I've no idea why he accepted it as Priority:required and Essential:yes, and given that python-minimal isn't any different to regular python (though presumably will be if we ever switch to python2.4), I can't see why it was uploaded at this point. The -5 upload removed the Essential:yes tag, and lowered the priority to standard (apparently due to apt automatically installing Essential:yes packages and thus screwing up people who've pinned stable or testing, see #348354, and #348319), but since the override was already set at required, that's what the Priority: field still shows. yes, that was a merge error on my side, fixed in -5. Maybe Doko's been paying attention to all the folks saying Ubuntu should contribute back more? no need to spoil the lists with foul language Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote: I saw today that the python-minimal package in unstable is tagged as Essential (and currently pulls in python2.3). According to policy, this is supposed to happen only after discussion on debian-devel and consensus is reached, but I couldn't find that discussion in the list archives. Joerg approved it at 09:50:15 2006/01/15, after Doko uploaded a new python-defaults package (-4). I've no idea why he accepted it as Priority:required and Essential:yes, and given that python-minimal isn't any different to regular python (though presumably will be if we ever switch to python2.4), I can't see why it was uploaded at this point. The -5 upload removed the Essential:yes tag, and lowered the priority to standard (apparently due to apt automatically installing Essential:yes packages and thus screwing up people who've pinned stable or testing, see #348354, and #348319), but since the override was already set at required, that's what the Priority: field still shows. Obviously, python2.4-minimal is what Ubuntu includes in its essential set; so presumably the idea is to move Debian to a similar arrangement. Maybe Doko's been paying attention to all the folks saying Ubuntu should contribute back more? I've changed the override to Priority: standard; I can't say I'm remotely impressed by how this has been handled. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
