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

2021-02-16 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2021-02-16 18:24:20 + (+), Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hi Bastian (2021.02.16_09:17:18_+) > > heck, even PIP is outdated in a way that you actually have to `pip > > install -U pip` in order to use it properly due to the recent > > manylinux change. > > Hrm, we probably should be

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

2021-02-16 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Bastian (2021.02.16_09:17:18_+) > heck, even PIP is outdated in a way that you actually have to `pip > install -U pip` in order to use it properly due to the recent > manylinux change. Hrm, we probably should be backporting support for manylinux2014. Care to file a bug against pip? SR --

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

2021-02-16 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 2/16/21 5:25 AM, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hi debian-python (2021.02.11_18:24:57_+) >> I have prepared a policy MR for this: >> https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/8 >> It catches up on the current split situation, too. > > We had a discussion on the

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

2021-02-16 Thread Bastian Venthur
On 12.02.21 01:11, Thomas Goirand wrote: I understand that upstream python guys probably think the way to consume python stuff is through venv, pip, and setuptools. I have a very different view on this, and probably I'm not alone. We (Debian people) indeed prefer if our user can enjoy a

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

2021-02-15 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi debian-python (2021.02.11_18:24:57_+) > I have prepared a policy MR for this: > https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/8 > It catches up on the current split situation, too. We had a discussion on the principle of the change, but nobody has responded to the

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

2021-02-13 Thread Thomas Goirand
Hi, FYI, my concerned are addressed by what Stefano wrote about the full desc, though I still feel like I need to reply to you. 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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Michael Kesper
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Stefano Rivera
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Stefano Rivera
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,

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

2021-02-12 Thread Jeremy Stanley
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Matthias Klose
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Valentin Vidic
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Andrius Merkys
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Simon McVittie
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Julien Palard
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Christian Kastner
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Valentin Vidic
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Jonathan Carter
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Martin
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.

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

2021-02-12 Thread Michael Kesper
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Valentin Vidic
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.

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

2021-02-12 Thread Tristan Seligmann
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Thomas Goirand
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Raphael Hertzog
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

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

2021-02-12 Thread Thomas Goirand
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

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

2021-02-11 Thread stefanor
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 different name, but it must be a name not > >

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

2021-02-11 Thread 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 Python, it should be easy to install all required > modules for what

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

2021-02-11 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Elana (2021.02.11_18:12:34_+) > - Stefano: Update python-policy to describe "python3-full". I have prepared a policy MR for this: https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/8 It catches up on the current split situation, too. diff --git

upstream python concerns, python3-full package for bullseye

2021-02-11 Thread Elana Hashman
[BCC steering-coun...@python.org] Some issues were raised to me privately by individual upstream Python maintainers about the user experience of Python in Debian, focused on confusion caused by the split of CPython into a number of smaller packages. I have spoken with the Python Steering Council