On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:56, Jesse Noller <jnol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: >> On Sep 14, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> >>> Please remember that some establishments have restrictions that mean >>> that tools like easy_install or pip cannot be used. In locked-down >>> corporate environments, python-full is potentially all that will be >>> available (and maybe very specific "blessed" environment-specific 3rd >>> party modules). >> >> Splitting things out for developers is not the same as keeping that split >> visible for distributions, either via tarball, binary from us, or through >> distros. In fact, I'd venture to guess that most locked down establishments >> are not going to be installing Python from us; they'll get it through their >> operating system vendor (well, thank goodness I don't have to know what >> locked down Windows users have to go through ;). >> >> Still, there's no reason why we couldn't ship sumo packages with all those >> batteries included again. >> >> -Barry > > Yup; that was spelled out in the OP - I would like: core, stdlib, > everything as 3 packages. 99% of people will download the 3rd.
Just to toss in my opinion, I think the standard library should be broken out in the VCS to make it very obvious what all Python VMs should come with and work with, but I don't think we should package it up for distribution separately. CPython should probably shift to having a slightly less stranglehold on the standard library than it has now. This would also help legitimize the other VMs. But I see no benefit for the general populace in having a version of Python w/o a standard library. Anyone who has funky space requirements can just do the leg work needed prune down the standard library to what they need. -Brett _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
