Re: Packaging mathjax and other javascript libraries

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net> writes:

> A couple of days back, I submitted a patch packaging mathjax. My
> conversations with Brendan there raised some more general questions. So,
> I'm posting here for wider visibility.
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27049
>
> 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 have
> 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’s difficult to draw
a line between a web application and a JavaScript library, so I’d rather
not have to make a decision like that each time we package something
written in JavaScript.

> 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 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.

-- 
Ricardo

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