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:
https://xstatic.readthedocs.io/en/latest/packaging.html#notes-for-linux-or-other-os-package-maintainers
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?
Paul
Reply to: