From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brendan Tildesley Subject: Re: Packaging mathjax and other javascript libraries Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:26:34 +1000 Message-ID: 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]:53744) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dEyDZ-0002NS-OX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 09:26:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dEyDV-0001kr-C0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 09:26:49 -0400 Received: from lb1.openmailbox.org ([5.79.108.160]:36420 helo=mail.openmailbox.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dEyDV-0001ka-3E for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 09:26:45 -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@gnu.org Ricardo Wurmus =E6=96=BC 2017-05-26 18:17 =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93: > Arun Isaac writes: > > [...] > 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. > >> 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 also wondered if mathjax should be broken up into js-mathjax and font-mathjax, since it is 180MiB or so. Some distros even just delete some of the fonts.