From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Packaging JavaScript libraries Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 21:35:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87d2bcfqed.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8dzjegk1gs.fsf@freestation00.office.fsf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59459) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XPGLb-0007jJ-4t for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:36:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XPGLV-0005Ln-Ef for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:36:03 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:57230) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XPGLV-0005Lb-7w for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:35:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8dzjegk1gs.fsf@freestation00.office.fsf.org> (Dave Thompson's message of "Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:23:15 -0400") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Dave Thompson Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Dave Thompson skribis: > JavaScript source files are typically bundled in a web applications > source tree or bundled by a JavaScript only package manager such as > Bower. Would it make sense to package JavaScript libraries in Guix? > I'm not sure how to approach the packaging of JavaScript at the system > level. I think there are two cases: 1. Web browser JavaScript libraries; 2. Node.js (and similar) JavaScript libraries. Packaging #2 seems useful to me, and since there=E2=80=99s already a widesp= read packaging format for that (npm), it should be easy to convert them automatically, like someone did for Nix. For users the benefit is (1) that there=E2=80=99s no need to switch to a different package manager, (2) = you get all the cool features of Guix, and (3) non-JS dependencies are also handled (npm can compiled C++ extensions, but it relies on having a working C++ environment at hand.) I=E2=80=99ve just discovered Bower. My guess is that there would be less incentive to use Guix for #1, because it=E2=80=99s a tool targeting specifi= cally Web developers. My 2=C2=A2, Ludo=E2=80=99.