On 2/12/21 1:42 AM, stefa...@debian.org wrote: > Hi Thomas (2021.02.12_00:11:07_+0000) >> 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 >>> currently in use.) >> >> 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 distribution perspective, we see them as developer use only. >> Don't confuse our users so that they install something they don't need. > > 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, adding "dev" in its name shows it's not for our users. > If it doesn't include distutils, venv, lib2to3, etc. then it doesn't > solve any problem we currently have, and we don't need it. The purpose > is to provide a package that gives you the entire stdlib. > > SR 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? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
