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

Re: Packaging of various XStatic dependencies for an eventual MoinMoin 2 package

On Saturday, 11 June 2022 19:48:03 CEST Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 6/10/22 21:18, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > 
> > I can make a start and try and observe the conventions used by your
> > XStatic packages, and I will discuss with the others in the moin group
> > whether we keep the same branch naming conventions or adopt yours. I
> > suppose that we can always migrate to a different naming convention fairly
> > easily at some point in the future, anyway.
> > 
> > Thanks for replying!
> Hi,
> I don't think you need to keep the naming of branches the same (it
> doesn't make sense: these XStatic packages aren't being packaged for
> OpenStack, so you can just use a single debian/main branch...), but
> probably you may keep the same packaging workflow.

Having been converting various XStatic packages into Debian packages, there is 
one thing I started to wonder about that is probably obvious and answered in a 
FAQ list, but I find it so odd that I want to ask about it anyway (and I 
couldn't find a FAQ list).

XStatic is just wrapping static Web resources so that they can be handled 
within Python's package/module system, as I understand it, and although Python 
Package Index downloads are available that bundle these Web resources, it is 
apparently envisaged that operating system packagers would just reference 
their own existing packages that provide such resources. See this part of the 
XStatic documentation:


It seems to me that when packaging XStatic-autosize, for example, I could make 
the python-xstatic-autosize package depend on libjs-autosize and remove all 
the bundled JavaScript from my package. But this doesn't seem to be done in 
other XStatic packages for Debian.

So, then I wonder why that is. What did I miss?


Reply to: