From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arun Isaac Subject: Re: Packaging mathjax and other javascript libraries Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 00:26:37 +0530 Message-ID: <61768049.AEAAKoV-YrEAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZKcwM@mailjet.com> References: <18f42204.AEUAKedMGncAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZJw2v@mailjet.com> <87shjsf2vu.fsf@elephly.net> 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]:45026) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <61768049.AEAAKoV-YrEAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZKcwM@bnc3.mailjet.com>) id 1dEgtu-0007GW-0r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 May 2017 14:57:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <61768049.AEAAKoV-YrEAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZKcwM@bnc3.mailjet.com>) id 1dEgtq-0000Rs-Vg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 May 2017 14:57:22 -0400 Received: from o110.p9.mailjet.com ([87.253.234.110]:45349) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <61768049.AEAAKoV-YrEAAAAAAAAAAAOtZhgAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZKcwM@bnc3.mailjet.com>) id 1dEgtq-0000RQ-OR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 May 2017 14:57:18 -0400 In-reply-to: <87shjsf2vu.fsf@elephly.net> 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" To: guix-devel Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> The patch I submitted simply extracts the mathjax tarball into >> /share/webapps/mathjax. Arch/Parabola use this kind of "webapps" >> path. But, Debian puts it in /share/javascript/mathjax. So far, we hav= e >> not adopted any convention for Guix. What path convention should we >> adopt? Is it necessary to distinguish between webapps and non-webapps, >> like Arch/Parabola do, or is it better to just put it in a javascript >> folder like Debian does? Are there other alternative approaches? > > I would be in favour of doing it the Debian way. It=E2=80=99s difficul= t to draw > a line between a web application and a JavaScript library, so I=E2=80=99= d rather > not have to make a decision like that each time we package something > written in JavaScript. I agree. Arch/Parabola even put packages like cgit and roundcube in a web= apps folder. However, in Guix, we don't treat these applications specially, and I think we should continue that way. >> Should we have any prefix in the package name for javascript libraries >> such as mathjax? Apparently, Debian uses the "libjs-" prefix. Also, it >> might be a good idea to have a separate file >> (gnu/packages/javascript.scm) for these javascript libraries. > > So far we have separated packages according to their purpose. There ar= e > a few exceptions, such as python.scm, which would best be split up. If > possible I=E2=80=99d rather have JavaScript libraries in modules that i= ndicate > what their purpose is. General purpose frameworks, on the other hand, > could very well fit in a javascript.scm. I think mathjax being a kind of library, should be put in a javascript.scm with a "javascript-" prefix. This is similar to the way we treat python libraries with a "python-" prefix, emacs packages/libraries with a "emacs-" prefix, etc. WDYT? Pjotr Prins writes: > We also have clojurescript, purescript, elm and others to consider - > even if they generate JS. Is JS going to be our object format? That's an interesting question. Should we even install the source code after compiling these various languages to javascript? I am in favor of only installing the compiled javascript to some path like share/javascript/projectname/