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]
