You're not really answering why they are important?
Is it because .deb packages will install inside dist-packages and when you run pip install as root without a virtual env, it installs inside site-packages?
I don't really see how this helps though? Sure you won't get paths to clash between the two but you still have duplicate packages which is probably not what you want..
Debian ships packages with a coherent dependency structure that crosses language boundaries. You don't need to care what language something is written in to be able to "apt install" it. The expectation is that if it "apt installed" then it should Just Work because all the required dependencies were also pulled in from Debian at the same time.
Debian also tries to ship just one version of everything in a single distribution release to reduce the burden on its maintainers.
This is fundamentally at odds with pip. If you've pip installed something, then that'll likely be the latest version of that package, and in the general case won't be the version of the same thing that shipped in the Debian release. If there exist debs that depend on that package and they are shared between pip and debs, now the deb could be using a different version of the dependency than the deb metadata says is acceptable, leading to breakage.
Another way of putting this: it shouldn't be possible for you to pip upgrade a dependency that a deb shipped by Debian itself relies upon. Because then you'd creating a Frankenstein system where Debian cannot rely on its own dependencies providing what it expects.
This is fixed by having two places where things are installed. One for what the system package manager ships, and one for your own use with pip and whatever you want to do. In this sense, having duplicate packages is actually exactly what you want.
Yep, I screw things up all the time with packages in homebrew that are written in python, when I forget to switch into a virtual env before doing stuff with pip. Debian's solution seems very sensible. And it is the same solution as homebrew, I suppose, as long as you don't interact with any of the homebrew-installed packages via pip. But I find it quite easy to accidentally do that.
There is https://peps.python.org/pep-0668/ which suggests that in the future this kind of behaviour will be default. I'm not sure of the specifics but I have seen lots of conversation about it in Debian circles.
OK, but... I get the same problem when I compile python from source. I'm not talking about the distribution's base files. In fact, I am in the business of creating an /opt/gjvc-corp-tools/ prefix with all my packages under there. When I compile python from source on Debian, the resulting installation (from make install) does not have a site-packages directory in-place already. That is what is mind-boggling.
It's at odds with everything. I leave the system versions of any language alone and use language manager tools or docker to be able to run the exact version that any project of my customers require. Asdf is my favorite because it handles nearly everything, even PostgreSQL.
Is it because .deb packages will install inside dist-packages and when you run pip install as root without a virtual env, it installs inside site-packages?
I don't really see how this helps though? Sure you won't get paths to clash between the two but you still have duplicate packages which is probably not what you want..