Bug#756734: ITP: python-xstatic-jquery -- jquery XStatic support
On 08/02/2014 01:42 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> Great! Sorry, I hadn't spotted any of the other xstatic packages
> you'd repackaged and uploaded yet so I didn't realize they were
> going to omit the Javascript libraries themselves and just provide
> the xstatic installation wrapper.
Well, I haven't uploaded any other xstatic package yet! :)
Only python-xstatic and python-xstatic-jquery are currently in NEW.
> In that case I don't suppose there's any risk of having them
> rejected, but it still may be worth a quick discussion with the
> Horizon devs to confirm this is at all necessary, so you don't waste
> your already limited available time (assuming this hasn't already
> been discussed with them).
I agree. However, seeing how it seems to work, it's looking like having
the xstatic packages is the only way so that Horizon knows where to
search for the .js files.
> I'll do some asking around as well... on
> its face, at least, it seems dubious that you should actually need a
> Debian wrapper around a Python wrapper around a Javascript library
> which is itself already packaged in Debian.
If so, using which mechanism horizon may find (for example) the
jquery.min.js file then? Currently, within the standard
openstack_dashboard/settings.py, we have:
STATICFILES_DIRS = (
('horizon/lib/jquery',
xstatic.main.XStatic(xstatic.pkg.jquery).base_dir),
)
It is IMO more reasonable to package xstatic packages rather than
applying patches that would need constant rebasing. Also, this helps
making sure the distro package matches the current requirements.txt,
also regarding available versions.
Packaging the xstatic packages will not take a lot of my time. What
will, is the packaging of the Javascript libraries themselves. For
example, I'm not sure how to package bootstrap-scss which, upstream, is
part of some ruby code (if I'm not mistaking. I'm not sure that's the
correct one I'm talking about, because I had a look a few weeks ago...).
Your thoughts would be welcome.
Thomas
Reply to: