On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> What would probably work better would be to add the python library
> inside upstream code.
That would work as well.
> But then we have another issue: the Python module is supposed to be
> packaged as python-, and the JS libs are supposed to be
> packa
Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-08-15 09:26:20)
> On 08/15/2014 12:28 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-08-14 09:26:05)
>>> Note that the XStatic python modules aren't just meta packages, they
>>> also offer a mechanism for a Python script to discover where to find
>>> a gi
On 08/15/2014 12:28 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-08-14 09:26:05)
>> Note that the XStatic python modules aren't just meta packages, they
>> also offer a mechanism for a Python script to discover where to find a
>> given static file in the system (which really, isn't
On 08/14/2014 11:38 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> If the XStatic files are pure metadata (albeit in Python syntax and
> installed to the PYTHONPATH, because when all you have in some of your
> target OSs/environments is a Python hammer, everything looks like a
> nail), wouldn't it make more sense to
Quoting Thomas Goirand (2014-08-14 09:26:05)
> Note that the XStatic python modules aren't just meta packages, they
> also offer a mechanism for a Python script to discover where to find a
> given static file in the system (which really, isn't obvious, as the
> Debian archive is a bit messy in t
On 14/08/14 15:44, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/14/2014 07:02 PM, Brian May wrote:
>> In what way will python-xstatic-jquery be better than libjs-jquery?
>
> It's not in any way better, it just adds the Python wrapper layer, so
> upstream code can easily find out that jquery is located in
> /usr/
On 08/14/2014 03:43 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Idea here: can’t python-xstatic-jquery just take over libjs-jquery
> via Provides, so we have one binary package less after this? (Of
> course, if the Debian JS maintainers agree, and probably will want
> to (co-)maintain python-xstatic-jquery after
Brian May dixit:
>In what way will python-xstatic-jquery be better than libjs-jquery?
No.
What I meant is:
| Package: python-xstatic-jquery
| Provides: libjs-jquery
is better than
| Package: python-xstatic-jquery
| Depends: libjs-jquery
|
| Package: libjs-jquery
because it’s less packages.
On 14 Aug 2014 17:43, "Thorsten Glaser" wrote:
> > It is also worth noting that the Debian package version for XStatic
> > modules is following the static file package version. For example, even
> > though upstream released XStatic-JQuery 1.10.2.1, the Debian package
> > version is 1.7.2.0, to mat
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Just a quick explanation of what I'm doing with the python-xstatic-*
> packages here. I've thought about how to do it best for a long time.
Thanks! I was wondering.
> It is also worth noting that the Debian package version for XStatic
> modules is fol
10 matches
Mail list logo
