Re: Uploading python-xstatic-* packages in Debian
On 14/08/14 15:44, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 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
> 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.
I can't help thinking that this is a lot like pkg-config, but runtime
instead of compile-time, and specific to Python instead of biased
If the XStatic files are pure metadata (albeit in Python syntax and
installed to the PYTHONPATH, because when all you have in some of your
target OSs/environments is a Python hammer, everything looks like a
projects' upstreams to ship them?
After all, when libwhatever doesn't ship whatever.pc, we don't upload
pkg-config-whatever.deb, we file a wishlist bug against libwhatever
"please include a .pc file".