bug#22115: WWW: Package Issues website has broken CSS

bug#22115: WWW: Package Issues website has broken CSS

[Jan Synáček]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 175 bytes --]

The rendering of [1] is broken for me. I'm using Firefox 42.0.
See attached screenshots.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/packages/issues.html

-- 
Jan Synáček

[-- Attachment #2: scr-left.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 86302 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: scr-right.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 89516 bytes --]

bug#22115:

[ng0]

Hi,

Firefox 47.0.1, windows 7: no broken css.

Is this enough to close this bug?
-- 
              ng0

bug#22115:

[ng0]

ng0 <ngillmann@runbox.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Firefox 47.0.1, windows 7: no broken css.
>
> Is this enough to close this bug?

Otherwise I'd say we need more input on how this specific firefox
renders the page, the implemented css support, the proof that the person
who reported this bug has experienced this bug with no added
addons/extensions, etc (basically: is is reproducible, and if yes, how?
... that's why I want (in the future) what Gentoo is doing for
Chrom(e/ium) / Firefox based browsers, a global extensions store.. And
to eliminate the need to contact mozilla/google cdn servers about
addons, and some more reasons).
-- 
              ng0

bug#22115:

[Leo Famulari]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:50:44PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Firefox 47.0.1, windows 7: no broken css.

It looks broken to me in Debian's Firefox 45.3.0 and Chromium
52.0.2743.116.

bug#22115:

[Luis Felipe López Acevedo]

This issue is solved in the repository of the website:

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/guix-artwork.git/commit/?id=85a782924d260164df281f5dee328674d2e190a9

The change will be visible for users soon.


-- 
Luis Felipe López Acevedo
http://sirgazil.bitbucket.org/

bug#22115: (no subject)

[Luis Felipe López Acevedo]

This bug is fixed in the website now:

https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/packages/issues.html


-- 
Luis Felipe López Acevedo
http://sirgazil.bitbucket.org/

bug#22115: (no subject)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Luis Felipe López Acevedo <felipe.lopez@openmailbox.org> skribis:

> This bug is fixed in the website now:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/packages/issues.html

It really looks nicer this way, thank you!

Initially the reason to include all the packages on this page (not just
those having issues) was that we could have links from, say,
/packages/c.html#coreutils to /packages/issues.html#coreutils.  However
that never happened.

Should we just list packages with actual issues?  Or should we add those
links?

Ludo’.

bug#22115: (no subject)

[Luis Felipe López Acevedo]

On 2016-12-18 05:14, ludo@gnu.org wrote:
> Luis Felipe López Acevedo <felipe.lopez@openmailbox.org> skribis:
> 
>> This bug is fixed in the website now:
>> 
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/packages/issues.html
> 
> It really looks nicer this way, thank you!
> 
> Initially the reason to include all the packages on this page (not just
> those having issues) was that we could have links from, say,
> /packages/c.html#coreutils to /packages/issues.html#coreutils.  However
> that never happened.


I was going to ask why list all packages, but focused on the bug instead 
:)


> Should we just list packages with actual issues?  Or should we add 
> those
> links?


For now, I'd remove the packages without issues. This would help reduce 
the size of the page, which is almost 2 MiB (I use 1 MiB as a limit for 
desktop browsers).

Soon™, I'd like to propose a package pages design where the package-list 
page indicates if a package has issues, and the package issues are 
listed in a package detail page (which does not exist yet). The current 
issues page would disappear. But I'll open a separate bug/proposal for 
this :)


-- 
Luis Felipe López Acevedo
http://sirgazil.bitbucket.org/

bug#22115: (no subject)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Luis Felipe López Acevedo <felipe.lopez@openmailbox.org> skribis:

> On 2016-12-18 05:14, ludo@gnu.org wrote:

[...]

>> Should we just list packages with actual issues?  Or should we add
>> those
>> links?
>
>
> For now, I'd remove the packages without issues. This would help
> reduce the size of the page, which is almost 2 MiB (I use 1 MiB as a
> limit for desktop browsers).

Sounds good.  Would you like to make this change?

> Soon™, I'd like to propose a package pages design where the
> package-list page indicates if a package has issues, and the package
> issues are listed in a package detail page (which does not exist
> yet). The current issues page would disappear. But I'll open a
> separate bug/proposal for this :)

That would be nice!  Looking forward to this.  :-)

Thanks for your feedback,
Ludo’.

bug#22115: (no subject)

[Luis Felipe López Acevedo]

On 2016-12-18 16:51, ludo@gnu.org wrote:
> Luis Felipe López Acevedo <felipe.lopez@openmailbox.org> skribis:
> 
>> On 2016-12-18 05:14, ludo@gnu.org wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> Should we just list packages with actual issues?  Or should we add
>>> those
>>> links?
>> 
>> 
>> For now, I'd remove the packages without issues. This would help
>> reduce the size of the page, which is almost 2 MiB (I use 1 MiB as a
>> limit for desktop browsers).
> 
> Sounds good.  Would you like to make this change?


I don't have much time this month, so if someone else can fix it, great. 
If not, I still have it on my TODO.


-- 
Luis Felipe López Acevedo
http://sirgazil.bitbucket.org/

bug#22115: (no subject)

[Luis Felipe López Acevedo]

Fixed.

-- 
Luis Felipe López Acevedo
http://sirgazil.bitbucket.org/