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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ecd812.4070...@debian.org