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
> /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.
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
towards C/C++.
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
nail), wouldn't it make more sense to ask the various Javascript
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".
S
Reply to: