Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Some reasons: * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubuntu might do on improving boot up will require python-minimal This would be nice. Right now it's accomplished through patches Ubuntu makes to dh_python and cdbs. They'd probably like to drop those. As a point of information, Ubuntu doesn't patch dh_python at present, and I don't see any Python-related changes in cdbs at the moment either. I don't know what's actually in (or more importantly not in) python2.4-minimal though. I'm eyeballing right now. Things that jump out at me: * No character encoding, translation, or locale handling. * A little oddly, loss of shutil. * No sockets. FWIW the relevant design docs from when this was done in Ubuntu are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EssentialPython (requirements) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PythonInEssential (details) The rationale for the set of included modules is in the latter, and was basically done by taking each module in perl-base and mapping it to its Python equivalent. The third seems like something software in base may want to do; I mention it specifically because perl-base include socket support. Socket support does seem to be there: $ dpkg -c /mirror/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-minimal_2.4.2-1ubuntu2_i386.deb | grep socket -rw-r--r-- root/root 49608 2006-01-17 12:59:02 ./usr/lib/python2.4/lib-dynload/_socket.so -rw-r--r-- root/root 12876 2006-01-17 12:58:18 ./usr/lib/python2.4/socket.py Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-01-19 19:21:07]: In Ubuntu, we've split the package in order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are part of base). Then what's the benefit of having python(-minimal) be essential at all? you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in python. That is a ease of development helper for ubuntu. how agressive does debian use it's perl in this regard? i think hardly at all. i would welcome to either kick both higher level scrip languages out (to shrink essential) and rewrite stuff like adduser in c or c++ or see if we cant really use perl (or perhaps even python-minimal) more for scripting in these places. it is an underutilized resource currently and would be a win in readability, structure and even speed. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:31 +, Colin Watson wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:36:13PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Some reasons: * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubuntu might do on improving boot up will require python-minimal This would be nice. Right now it's accomplished through patches Ubuntu makes to dh_python and cdbs. They'd probably like to drop those. As a point of information, Ubuntu doesn't patch dh_python at present, and I don't see any Python-related changes in cdbs at the moment either. Oh, hrm. So packages that need to use python-minimal manually handle their Python dependencies? That seems like a significant step backwards, in terms of handling transitions. $ dpkg -c /mirror/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.4/python2.4-minimal_2.4.2-1ubuntu2_i386.deb | grep socket -rw-r--r-- root/root 49608 2006-01-17 12:59:02 ./usr/lib/python2.4/lib-dynload/_socket.so -rw-r--r-- root/root 12876 2006-01-17 12:58:18 ./usr/lib/python2.4/socket.py D'oh. Apparently I'm blind. Thanks. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Colin Watson wrote: FWIW the relevant design docs from when this was done in Ubuntu are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EssentialPython (requirements) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PythonInEssential (details) The rationale for the set of included modules is in the latter, and was basically done by taking each module in perl-base and mapping it to its Python equivalent. FWIW, that's a fairly strange way to do it, since modules are added/removed from perl-base as needed by the perl-using programs in the base system. For example, perl-base includes Data::Dumper because debconf (used to) use it, not because there's any other particular reason to include that module in base, and I've just asked that Data::Dumper be removed, so including its equivilant (pickle) in python-base on that rationalle is decidely strange. If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind) b) include only the modules needed by the package(s). -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind) b) include only the modules needed by the package(s). Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part of base, but not full python, and this is something that python upstream explicitly objects to. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]: Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part of base, but not full python, and this is something that python upstream explicitly objects to. Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no? -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Le Jeu 19 Janvier 2006 22:47, Matt Zimmerman a écrit : On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]: Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part of base, but not full python, and this is something that python upstream explicitly objects to. Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no? One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and support requests from their user community when things don't work the way they should. It is already a source of frustration to them that we don't install python-dev with python. IMHO, python-minimal has not to be a developpement environment that is viable as-is, but only what is needed to run the scripts that need it. That has to be stated clearly in the description of the package, so that nobody would assume anything about it. Honnestly, I would be really surprised that we can't find a consensus here, if it's needed one day (which currently isn't in Debian if I've followed that thread correctly enough). Ubuntu does not AFAICT the same size requirements as debian do for base, and I really think that python upstream can understand that the *full* python suite on a embeded device just does not makes sense. To me, this looks like a bad excuse. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp744tnc1Bg5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]: Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part of base, but not full python, and this is something that python upstream explicitly objects to. Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no? One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and support requests from their user community when things don't work the way they should. It is already a source of frustration to them that we don't install python-dev with python. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 12:45]: Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part of base, but not full python, and this is something that python upstream explicitly objects to. Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no? One of the appealing things about the Python language is their batteries included philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and support requests from their user community when things don't work the way they should. For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for breaking the standard library in to its component parts and not installing it all by default. This problem has been largely abrogated as of late, but I'd rather not see us piss off the python community for making a similar mistake. That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but not us. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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? - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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). -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
* David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-19 17:58]: For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for breaking the standard library in to its component parts and not installing it all by default. This problem has been largely abrogated as of late, but I'd rather not see us piss off the python community for making a similar mistake. I definitely agree we should listen to the Python community, especially with the lovely Martin v. Löwis doing so much good work for us. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
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]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: The difference between installed (was installed initially) and installed (is installed now). The compromise we struck with upstream was that we would not give the user a system with a broken Python. If they create one on their own, that's their business (and they could strip it down themselves anyway). Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full python somehow. Is this correct? No, they install the full system by default (ie, python and python-minimal both get installed by debootstrap as part of base), but allow it to be stripped down to python-minimal later if the user wants to. In warty there was no python-minimal, and python2.3 was installed along with apt (pri: important), in hoary python-minimal was essential, and installed with dpkg (pri: required) and python was installed with apt; in breezy it's the same as hoary, with the exception that buildds only get python-minimal; dapper is the same as breezy. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full python somehow. Is this correct? python is part of the base system in Ubuntu. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: python packaging infrastructure
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:06:39PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: Josselin Mouette writes: Le lundi 16 janvier 2006 à 15:24 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit : This is the right direction, and adding support for extensions makes this complete. Does your proposal allow rebuilding these packages without actually changing anything (except the changelog). Being able to rebuild packages for a new python version without changing anything was the purpose of dh_python from the very beginning, for both packaging styles: * for packages with a single python-foo package containing extension foo, build-depending on python-dev, a rebuild will generate a new package built against the new version; * for packages with python2.3-foo and python2.4-foo, a rebuild will make python-foo depend on the new version. The only case that isn't handled is when the package isn't maintained much, and lacks python2.5-foo when the python2.5 transition approaches. This is independent of python-support. the design decision of putting the binary-all python packages in a separate directory into /var/lib/python2.x/site-packages has some problems when supporting packages with extensions (a proposal beeing made on #irc was to keep the extensions in the standard path). suppose you have the following scenario /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo/ __init__.py fooext.so (doing a import foomod) foomod.py which is splitted into (by python-support) /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo/ __init__.py fooext.so /var/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo/ __init__.py foomod.py Having /var/lib/python2.3/site-packages appended to sys.path let's the import of foomod fail (cannot be found). Using just one package directory inside /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages does avoid the problem (the way the current python-central works). I think this objection is misguided for the following reason. If a package includes a python extension, then any .py files it also includes are either in the same directory (or same tree) with those .so files, or they are in some other unrelated directory. If they are in the same directory, then *that directory has the name of the python implementation in its path*, because .so's are not shared between python implementations. In this case, it is not appropriate or reasonable for these .py files to be managed via a symlink farm, because each minor version of python has its own separate .py file (which may not vary from release to release, but that's beside the point). If they are in different directories, then foomod.py already doesn't enjoy a privileged location in the current path; so whether they are symlink-farmed or not, there must already be handling in place to locate foomod.py, so it doesn't much matter which particular directory it's located in. Perhaps you are arguing that a package should be able to ship /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo/fooext.so and /usr/lib/python/site-packages/foo/foomod.py, and have the infrastructure make foomod.py (or foomod.pyc?) available in /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo. I'm not sure why this would be advantageous? So how does python-support handle packages, where the extension module is split out in it's own binary package? If they're split out in separate binary packages, then surely the extension package doesn't require any special handling, and the module package can be managed as before? (since obviously it's not sensible to split /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/foo between two separate packages...) Also, if you really put all of these files in /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages, doesn't that make it unnecessarily difficult to distinguish between symlinks managed by python-support, and symlinks managed by the packaging system? (I remember that Joss's description of python-support provided for symlinking of other data files that may be included in module directories, other than .py files...) -- 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
