[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Uploading python-xstatic-* packages in Debian

On 08/14/2014 03:43 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Idea here: can’t python-xstatic-jquery just take over libjs-jquery
> via Provides, so we have one binary package less after this? (Of
> course, if the Debian JS maintainers agree, and probably will want
> to (co-)maintain python-xstatic-jquery after this.) Similar for the
> other ones. That would mean we’d have almost zero cost for the addi‐
> tion of python-xstatic-* because they’d just take over the non-xstatic
> ones and provide the same functionality plus more.

Well, the xstatic packages don't contain the full upstream source, they
mostly contain the javascript file (eg: jquery.js in this case), and
that's it. Upstream for jquery has lots of other stuff included.

What would probably work better would be to add the python library
inside upstream code. But then we have another issue: the Python module
is supposed to be packaged as python-<something>, and the JS libs are
supposed to be packaged as libjs-<something>. So we'd have to break one
or the other convention. I don't think that's desirable to do. We don't
want to break automatic dependency calculation by dh_python{2,3} either.

On 08/14/2014 07:02 PM, Brian May wrote:>
>>> It is also worth noting that the Debian package version for XStatic
>>> modules is following the static file package version. For example,
>>> even though upstream released XStatic-JQuery, the Debian
>>> package version is, to match the version number of
>>> libjs-jquery.
> Finding it hard to understand the reasoning here.

The important bit is that upstream requires version X of
python-xstatic-jquery because it needs version X of jquery. When we have
jquery 1.7.2, then we just add a leading version number for the
python-xstatic-jquery package, and it becomes The XStatic
package itself doesn't contain much but the Python wrapper, so it's not
a big deal (it's very simplistic Python code).

On 08/14/2014 07:02 PM, Brian May wrote:
> In what way will python-xstatic-jquery be better than libjs-jquery?

It's not in any way better, it just adds the Python wrapper layer, so
upstream code can easily find out that jquery is located in
/usr/share/javascript/jquery. As for upstream, they mostly use
virtualenv stuff, downloading from PyPi to run the unit tests, and in
that case, the XStatic package will contain the jquery.js /
jquery.min.js file. So it's transparent for upstream, and provides us
(eg: distribution package maintainers) a way to stop having embedded
static files libraries. In fact, XStatic has been created upstream with
distributions in mind, and I find it very nice of them. It's indeed
solving the problem, even if that's some non-negligible work at first to
do the python-xstatic-* packaging.

For reference, have a look at this, it may be better than all of my

In Debian, I just patch VERSION =, and BASE_DIR=. That's in fact what
upstream for XStatic expects me to do! Then on the resulting package, I
just delete the xstatic/pkg/angular/data folder and its content which
contains the embedded Angular javascript files, since I want to use
/usr/share/javascript/angular.js instead.

I hope that's better explanations. If not, ping me again...


Reply to: