Re: python-minimal in base?

[Brendan O'Dea]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 01:45:26AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>[...] upstream considered it completely unacceptable for anyone to
>ship python in such a state that users would end up with less than the
>full python suite installed on their system.  [...]

In fairness, Perl upstream had similar problems with Debian distributing
their product piece-meal.

The principal concern was the exclusion of documentation, which seems to
have been assuaged by the addition of a stub for perldoc which instructs
users to install the perl-doc package.

--bod, noting that the INSTALL doc now includes the contents of Debian's
   perl-base as an example of a minimal install...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal in base?

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:23:46AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:43:22AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Also note that much of Debian started out as Perl. I won't compare
> > the two, but it's basically the same. And there is python-minimal
> > and I have heard rumours that it will be in base soon.

> What? What? What?

> Can you expand on this rumor (you or someone else)? I was postponing a
> post on debian-devel asking about having some sort of python in base
> since I developed a tool for managing vim add-ons in python, but I'm
> scared about uploading it with a dependency on python (since it should
> be shipped with vim itself). More generally we have core tools developed
> in python (e.g. reportbug), and it's a pity not having the minimal
> needed python support for them in base.

Frankly, I think the fact that Debian has a python-minimal package at *all*
is deplorable.  When this package first snuck into Debian from Ubuntu, it
was stated quite clearly in the following discussion that upstream
considered it completely unacceptable for anyone to ship python in such a
state that users would end up with less than the full python suite installed
on their system.  The *only* reason for the split between python and
python-minimal in Ubuntu is because python-minimal is Essential: yes, and
the only reason this split is *acceptable* to upstream is that python itself
is also part of the base system (Priority: important).

Given that there has been no decision to include python-minimal in the set
of essential packages for Debian, and python hasn't been promoted to the
base system for Debian, it's totally premature for this package to even
exist in Debian.  The only goal this package serves is to make it convenient
for the maintainer to maintain the package for both Debian and Ubuntu from a
single source; in all other respects, it's bad for Debian.

And the python2.4-minimal package even has reverse-dependencies in unstable
now.  

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: python-minimal in base?

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.24.0923 +0100]:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:43:22AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Also note that much of Debian started out as Perl. I won't compare
> > the two, but it's basically the same. And there is python-minimal
> > and I have heard rumours that it will be in base soon.
> 
> What? What? What?

Ah, rumours.

So I have to rephrase what I wrote. I've heard talk about python in
base, but not that it's been decided. This was around the Python BoF
in Mexico.

The discussion was postponed post-etch though. Sorry for bringing it
up. Can we please postpone it again?

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://debiansystem.info
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
"no, 'eureka' is greek for 'this bath is too hot.'"
-- dr. who


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: python-minimal

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 02:08:25PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, that's not what I said.  The python-minimal package is designed to be
> > used *as* an Essential package, not *by* Essential packages.  Nothing,
> > essential or not, should depend on it in Debian, whether or not
> > python-minimal itself gets marked as Essential: yes.  (As long as
> > python-minimal is not essential, you don't depend on it because it shouldn't
> > be installed without python; if python-minimal *is* essential, you don't
> > depend on it because you don't declare dependencies on essential packages.)

>   I'm playing paranoid here, but why don't you want to declare
> dependencies on essential packages? If the package ceases to be Essential at
> some point in the future, some non-essential packages may still need it's
> functionality, but without this relationship being tracked, the package
> could easily disappear. Wouldn't it be better for the package database to
> have as much information as possible on what uses what, essential or not?

Essential is defined as the minimal set of functionality that must be
available and usable on the system even when packages are in an unconfigured
(but unpacked) state.  This is nedeed to avoid unresolvable dependency loops
on upgrade.  If you add unnecessary dependencies on packages in this set,
you increase the chances that there *will* be an unresolvable dependency
loop caused by forcing these Essential packages to be configured first
before they need to be.  It also increases the chances that frontends will
be unable to *calculate* an upgrade path, even if one exists.

Also, it's pretty unlikely that we'll ever remove functionality from
Essential (which is one of many reasons why we should be cautious about
adding to it), but we *have* removed particular packages from Essential in
the past when the functionality has moved to a different package.

So depending on these packages "just in case" they stop being essential does
way more harm than good.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: python-minimal

[Russ Allbery]

Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm playing paranoid here, but why don't you want to declare
> dependencies on essential packages?

The short answer is "because Policy 3.5 says they shouldn't."  I'm not
positive about the exact rationale, though.

> If the package ceases to be Essential at some point in the future, some
> non-essential packages may still need it's functionality, but without
> this relationship being tracked, the package could easily disappear.

It's fairly unlikely that anything currently included in Essential will
ever be dropped from Essential in the future, at least without a lot of
warning and mass bug-filing on the packages that need to add dependencies.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal

[Tyler MacDonald]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, that's not what I said.  The python-minimal package is designed to be
> used *as* an Essential package, not *by* Essential packages.  Nothing,
> essential or not, should depend on it in Debian, whether or not
> python-minimal itself gets marked as Essential: yes.  (As long as
> python-minimal is not essential, you don't depend on it because it shouldn't
> be installed without python; if python-minimal *is* essential, you don't
> depend on it because you don't declare dependencies on essential packages.)

I'm playing paranoid here, but why don't you want to declare
dependencies on essential packages? If the package ceases to be Essential at
some point in the future, some non-essential packages may still need it's
functionality, but without this relationship being tracked, the package
could easily disappear. Wouldn't it be better for the package database to
have as much information as possible on what uses what, essential or not?

Thanks,
Tyler



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 04:25:18PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:

> "Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:32:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> >>> Seems to me that this should be at least a bug report on alsa-utils.
> >>> I'm surprised that there would be a need for a lintian check for it, 
> >>> but
> >>> I guess it's better than letting such bugs go unnoticed.

> >>I can add one; it's not a lot of overhead given that lintian already has 
> >>a
> >>framework for checking for bad dependencies.  It's basically just another
> >>branch in an if statement.

> >>What's the precise check?  Any package depending on python-minimal should
> >>receive an error (or a warning?)

> Based on Vorlon's message:

> If (package depends on python-minimal) and (package is not essential) then 
> ERROR.

No, that's not what I said.  The python-minimal package is designed to be
used *as* an Essential package, not *by* Essential packages.  Nothing,
essential or not, should depend on it in Debian, whether or not
python-minimal itself gets marked as Essential: yes.  (As long as
python-minimal is not essential, you don't depend on it because it shouldn't
be installed without python; if python-minimal *is* essential, you don't
depend on it because you don't declare dependencies on essential packages.)

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal

[Joe Smith]

"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed.  That's
a bug.
alsa-utils should depend on "python | python-minimal", or perhaps the
python packages should Provide python-minimal.
Does this seem right?


Er... alsa-utils should be depending on python, *not* on python-minimal at
all.  The previous discussion of this package was that python-minimal 
exists

only for the possibility of use as an Essential: yes package, should never
be installed without python, and should not be used as a dependency by 
other

packages.


To clarify, AIUI Python-minimal should never be installed without python, 
unless install of only python-minimal is explicitly requested by the user. 
This is to avoid having to include full python on an embeded Debian, while 
minimizing cases where a user is surprised by missing python libraries. 




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal

[Joe Smith]

"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:32:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:



> Seems to me that this should be at least a bug report on alsa-utils.
> I'm surprised that there would be a need for a lintian check for it, 
> but

> I guess it's better than letting such bugs go unnoticed.


I can add one; it's not a lot of overhead given that lintian already has 
a

framework for checking for bad dependencies.  It's basically just another
branch in an if statement.



What's the precise check?  Any package depending on python-minimal should
receive an error (or a warning?)


Based on Vorlon's message:

If (package depends on python-minimal) and (package is not essential) then 
ERROR.



It's pretty definitely a bug, so AIUI should be marked as an error.


with roughly the text of Steve's previous message?


Short message: "Non-essential package depends on python-minimal."

Long Message: Something along the lines of Steve's meassage.


Uh... sure :)

--
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/






--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal

[Marco d'Itri]

On Apr 30, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
Yes, it's very annoying that a dependency on another scripting language
was added because of a trivial script.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: python-minimal

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:32:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > Seems to me that this should be at least a bug report on alsa-utils.
> > I'm surprised that there would be a need for a lintian check for it, but
> > I guess it's better than letting such bugs go unnoticed.

> I can add one; it's not a lot of overhead given that lintian already has a
> framework for checking for bad dependencies.  It's basically just another
> branch in an if statement.

> What's the precise check?  Any package depending on python-minimal should
> receive an error (or a warning?)

It's pretty definitely a bug, so AIUI should be marked as an error.

> with roughly the text of Steve's previous message?

Uh... sure :)

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Seems to me that this should be at least a bug report on alsa-utils.
> I'm surprised that there would be a need for a lintian check for it, but
> I guess it's better than letting such bugs go unnoticed.

I can add one; it's not a lot of overhead given that lintian already has a
framework for checking for bad dependencies.  It's basically just another
branch in an if statement.

What's the precise check?  Any package depending on python-minimal should
receive an error (or a warning?) with roughly the text of Steve's previous
message?

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:16:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> >> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.

> >> As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed.  That's
> >> a bug.

> >> alsa-utils should depend on "python | python-minimal", or perhaps the
> >> python packages should Provide python-minimal.

> >> Does this seem right?

> > Er... alsa-utils should be depending on python, *not* on python-minimal at
> > all.  The previous discussion of this package was that python-minimal exists
> > only for the possibility of use as an Essential: yes package, should never
> > be installed without python, and should not be used as a dependency by other
> > packages.

> Ok, should I file a bug report against it, or is some other solution
> better?  This sounds like a lintian situation...

Seems to me that this should be at least a bug report on alsa-utils.  I'm
surprised that there would be a need for a lintian check for it, but I guess
it's better than letting such bugs go unnoticed.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: python-minimal

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.
>
>> As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed.  That's
>> a bug.
>
>> alsa-utils should depend on "python | python-minimal", or perhaps the
>> python packages should Provide python-minimal.
>
>> Does this seem right?
>
> Er... alsa-utils should be depending on python, *not* on python-minimal at
> all.  The previous discussion of this package was that python-minimal exists
> only for the possibility of use as an Essential: yes package, should never
> be installed without python, and should not be used as a dependency by other
> packages.

Ok, should I file a bug report against it, or is some other solution
better?  This sounds like a lintian situation...

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: python-minimal

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:00:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> The alsa-utils package depends on python-minimal.

> As a result, I must now have two versions of python installed.  That's
> a bug.

> alsa-utils should depend on "python | python-minimal", or perhaps the
> python packages should Provide python-minimal.

> Does this seem right?

Er... alsa-utils should be depending on python, *not* on python-minimal at
all.  The previous discussion of this package was that python-minimal exists
only for the possibility of use as an Essential: yes package, should never
be installed without python, and should not be used as a dependency by other
packages.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature