[stdlib-sig] Breaking out the stdlib

[Brett Cannon]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:56, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Please remember that some establishments have restrictions that mean
>>> that tools like easy_install or pip cannot be used. In locked-down
>>> corporate environments, python-full is potentially all that will be
>>> available (and maybe very specific "blessed" environment-specific 3rd
>>> party modules).
>>
>> Splitting things out for developers is not the same as keeping that split
>> visible for distributions, either via tarball, binary from us, or through
>> distros.  In fact, I'd venture to guess that most locked down establishments
>> are not going to be installing Python from us; they'll get it through their
>> operating system vendor (well, thank goodness I don't have to know what
>> locked down Windows users have to go through ;).
>>
>> Still, there's no reason why we couldn't ship sumo packages with all those
>> batteries included again.
>>
>> -Barry
>
> Yup; that was spelled out in the OP - I would like: core, stdlib,
> everything as 3 packages. 99% of people will download the 3rd.

Just to toss in my opinion, I think the standard library should be
broken out in the VCS to make it very obvious what all Python VMs
should come with and work with, but I don't think we should package it
up for distribution separately. CPython should probably shift to
having a slightly less stranglehold on the standard library than it
has now. This would also help legitimize the other VMs.

But I see no benefit for the general populace in having a version of
Python w/o a standard library. Anyone who has funky space requirements
can just do the leg work needed prune down the standard library to
what they need.

-Brett