Re: Packaging mathjax and other javascript libraries

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net> writes:

>> So far we have separated packages according to their purpose.  There are
>> a few exceptions, such as python.scm, which would best be split up.  If
>> possible I’d rather have JavaScript libraries in modules that indicate
>> 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?

Sounds good.  I would prefer a shorter prefix, though, such as “js-”.
We use “cl-” for Common Lisp, and I’m glad I don’t need to type so much
:)

> 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/

Yes, only installing the compiled/minified JavaScript sounds like the
right thing to do.  Users can get the original sources with “guix build
-S”.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net