5 ms·
It is fine though. CGI for python is one pip install away, as it is for the other languages you listed. Most rational people are ok with code being removed tha
by WD-42 1y ago
It is fine though. CGI for python is one pip install away, as it is for the other languages you listed.
Most rational people are ok with code being removed that 99.99% of users have absolutely no use for, especially if it is unmaintained, a burden, or potentially contains security issues. If you are serious about cgi you’ll probably be looking at 3rd party modules anyway.
- LtWorf 1y agoI don't think it's reasonable to expect that most python installs use pip
- simonw 1y agoWhy not?
- cb321 1y agoI'm not sure what @LtWorf means, exactly, but one reason I can think of is that on Linux (Gentoo & Debian at least), the system package managers are not putting pip in place by default with python itself, the way they used to. The rationale, I believe, is to steer users towards using the system package manager or only doing ~/.local style things. EDIT: So, you get threads like this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65651040/what-is-the-recommended-replacement-for-pip-in-debian-ubuntu-where-there-is-no-d https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65651040/what-is-the-rec... and so on
- LtWorf 1y agoBecause it's much easier to use apt and install the module system-wide, and then I don't need to mess around with venv, requirements.txt, and there's someone that will fix any CVEs or malicious backdoors that get found out, automatically. Unlike what happens with venv.
- int_19h 1y agoIt's much easier until you run into a package that doesn't have a .deb for it, like, well, CGI? That is very much a self-inflicted wound, though. If you insist on not using the standard packaging solution for the language, you have to own the complications of that.
- kragen 1y agoIf you do insist on using pip, you will often find that it works very poorly or not at all if you are using an old version of either Python or some Python module. This is another aspect of the social backward compatibility problems in the current Python community.
- LtWorf 1y agohttps://packages.debian.org/sid/python3-legacy-cgi https://packages.debian.org/sid/python3-legacy-cgi Python has no standard packaging. They even deprecated and removed distutils (another terrible idea that caused a lot of busywork). The only way that python supports packages is via 3rd party external solutions.
- kragen 1y agoYeah, the distutils clusterfuck is another excellent reason someone might "insist on not using the standard packaging solution for the language": it's specifically and only the packages that did use the standard packaging solution for the language, distutils, that got broken when distutils was removed from the standard library. I mean, I understand the desire to remove distutils. It sucked. It was the least Pythonic package in the whole Python standard library. But removing it was even worse, because it means you can't use old versions of most Python libraries with recent versions of Python.
- WD-42 1y agoYou must be living in a different reality.
- LtWorf 1y agoYes mine. At work I don't use pip. We have thousands of servers all using python and none using pip or modules obtained via pip before imaging. Personally… I don't use pip. Why? apt is there.
- WD-42 1y agoIt’s easier for you to rely on the volunteers that maintain python packages for Debian. That’s fine, but if you need something niche like cgi, you might have to package it yourself.
- LtWorf 1y agoBecause pypi is managed by paid people? Also I'm part of the python team in debian so I can package what's missing or update out of date things if I need.