From: David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:22:04 -0500
Message-id: <[๐] zmfwpfrxuvr5g...@axis.corp>
Reply-to: debian-user@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[๐]
CAEG4cZXy=0lra4adonsaueeoafdyapoqf5cze3s1zerrjfs...@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[๐]
CAEG4cZXe=BUQ5VE_z0rcLqHGGERdANnZ=vjiznjbk439jif...@mail.gmail.com>
<caeg4czxjfpb1e795uxbc1ksdvu918eil2v61sxtggace_gs...@mail.gmail.com>
<caeg4czugi3trbozz5mufymzxrn92krpndudcawjf_octdof...@mail.gmail.com>
<[๐] CAEG4cZXy=0lra4adonsaueeoafdyapoqf5cze3s1zerrjfs...@mail.gmail.com>
> On Mon 24 Jul 2023 at 15:52:38 (+0530), Susmita/Rajib wrote:
>> From: David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk>
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 10:06:43 -0500
>>
>> Thank you for writing back with the link leading to the Python
>> Discourse thread. [ โฆ ]
>> Can't accept a third party website info on face value.
>
> PEPs are official Python documents; the one I referred to
> is an Accepted (as of June last year) Standards Track.
>
>> I would have preferred a similar post assuring us
>> from the Debian Side. A 3rd party software installer from within the
>> native Debian
>> system for which there isn't an explicit assurance from Debian is
>> unsettling.
>
> I'm not sure who you think the first and second parties are.
[ ... ]
I have considered myself as the 1st party. Debian universe as the 2nd
party and the rest as the 3rd party. So by my consideration, anything
'Python' outside of the Debian Universe is 3rd party. I have rarely
install software outside of the Debian Universe.
[ ... ]
> Debian is a distribution, not a software company. The best
> you can expect from Debian is what I gave you: the Release
> Notes for bookworm.ยน Debian offers no guarantees, and you're
> reminded of this every time you login:
>
> "Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY,
> to the extent permitted by applicable law."
[ ... ]
Yes, I have acknowledged and thanked you for your post. But we are not
travelling in that direction presently.
[ ... ]
>> I could have risked if a Debian system snapshot could be
>> saved and in case of any trouble, could be reverted back to.
>>
>> Yes, a virtual environment (i.e., virtualisation) however is an idea
>> that could theoretically be looked into, but that would mean extra
>> system resources to be spent for it.
>
> AIUI a standalone binary is bound to use more resources anyway,
> because it duplicates some already supplied as part of the OS.
[ ... ]
A virtualisation environment is huge in terms of memory, RAM, HDD or
CPU usages. But let us not discuss on this aspect presently. I want to
build a standalone binaries and give it to a kid who runs Doze. He
doesn't have 'python' environment installed. I am trying to assist
him.
[ ... ]
>
> ยน As you later wrote: "something published as the Debian Wiki, Release
> Notes, Debian GNU/Linux FAQ or other informative posts or webpages
> that could help disseminate information about issues that matter."
[ ... ]
