8:17 a.m.
= Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
Change owner(s): T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com>
This is multi-release change, already approved for Fedora 20.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-July/001197...
Traditionally, Fedora has been pushing bits from its various servers to
people's browsers in an ad-hoc fashion, and issues surrounding JavaScript have
been swept under the rug. This change proposal provides a simple framework for
shipping static web content and a way forward to treat JavaScript more closely
to other code in the distribution.
== Detailed Description ==
A standard directory (/usr/share/web-assets) for static bits that are intended
to be delivered to web browsers, such as CSS Frameworks, UI libraries, etc.
will be introduced. HTTP daemons in the distribution should make this
directory available publicly as /.sysassets.
Additionally, a standard directory (/usr/share/javascript) for JavaScript
code, which may be used in browsers or server-side by applications such as
nodejs or rubygem-execjs will also be introduced.
Finally, new packaging guidelines [1] will provide instructions for making
proper use of these new directories.
== Scope ==
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets#Scope
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/Web_Assets
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
8:45 a.m.
2014-05-14 15:17 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com>:
== Scope ==
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets#Scope
This is usefully detailed, but it’s not always clear what parts need to be
done by “other developers” (to use the template wording), particularly the
two “will need to be modified” references to Ruby/Java/Node.js .
Mirek
3:49 p.m.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz> wrote:
This is usefully detailed, but it’s not always clear what parts need
to be
done by “other developers” (to use the template wording), particularly the
two “will need to be modified” references to Ruby/Java/Node.js .
The known affected packages are listed in the "Dependencies" section
of the change wiki, but for some more detail:
These are issues have been prioritized since they're cases of
JavaScript running locally on Fedora systems, not just being
transmitted over HTTP. The FPC is much more concerned about bundling
in these cases, and our guidelines have never actually permitted JS to
be bundled in these instances.
I think all the nodejs packages are all already taken care of by Jamie
Nguyen and/or me at this point, except for coffee-script. (Will look
at that one soon.) This just involved making sure there were pure
JavaScript packages available so e.g. rubygem-uglifier can use a copy
of uglify-js that doesn't require nodejs.
There are only two ruby packages affected: rubygem-uglifier and
rubygem-coffee-script. All that's required for them is dropping the
.js files they bundle and replacing them by a symlink to the copy in
the new js-* packages. I'll file bugs for them with patches once I've
fixed coffee-script.
Haven't really looked at Java too hard. I need to go through all the
packages that depend on rhino and unpack their .jar files and see what
wonders lie within... Unfortunately you can't symlink within a .jar
file so these will likely need the static exception in the new
guidelines. :-( Fixing them doesn't win us very much until we have
some better tracking there, so these are kind of low priority.
Will try and do more poking and update the wiki page over the weekend.
(Also, I think we have everything we need for jQuery now, so I should
be able to finish that up this weekend too. :-)
Thanks,
-T.C.
4 p.m.
2014-05-15 22:49 GMT+02:00 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com>:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz>
wrote:
> This is usefully detailed, but it’s not always clear what parts need to
be
> done by “other developers” (to use the template wording), particularly
the
> two “will need to be modified” references to Ruby/Java/Node.js .
The known affected packages are listed in the "Dependencies" section
of the change wiki, but for some more detail:
<snip>
That seems fairly manageable (especially with so much of the work already
done). I was worried that this might involve hundreds of packages and
packagers, which is not the case.
Thanks for the explanation,
Mirek
5:39 a.m.
Dne 15.5.2014 22:49, T.C. Hollingsworth napsal(a):
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz>
wrote:
> This is usefully detailed, but it’s not always clear what parts need to be
> done by “other developers” (to use the template wording), particularly the
> two “will need to be modified” references to Ruby/Java/Node.js .
The known affected packages are listed in the "Dependencies" section
of the change wiki, but for some more detail:
These are issues have been prioritized since they're cases of
JavaScript running locally on Fedora systems, not just being
transmitted over HTTP. The FPC is much more concerned about bundling
in these cases, and our guidelines have never actually permitted JS to
be bundled in these instances.
I think all the nodejs packages are all already taken care of by Jamie
Nguyen and/or me at this point, except for coffee-script. (Will look
at that one soon.) This just involved making sure there were pure
JavaScript packages available so e.g. rubygem-uglifier can use a copy
of uglify-js that doesn't require nodejs.
There are only two ruby packages affected: rubygem-uglifier and
rubygem-coffee-script. All that's required for them is dropping the
.js files they bundle and replacing them by a symlink to the copy in
the new js-* packages. I'll file bugs for them with patches once I've
fixed coffee-script.
Is it true actually? Last time I was checking the Ruby packages
contained different/modified version of upstream JS files.
Vít
Haven't really looked at Java too hard. I need to go through all the
packages that depend on rhino and unpack their .jar files and see what
wonders lie within... Unfortunately you can't symlink within a .jar
file so these will likely need the static exception in the new
guidelines. :-( Fixing them doesn't win us very much until we have
some better tracking there, so these are kind of low priority.
Will try and do more poking and update the wiki page over the weekend.
(Also, I think we have everything we need for jQuery now, so I should
be able to finish that up this weekend too. :-)
Thanks,
-T.C.
8:03 p.m.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Is it true actually? Last time I was checking the Ruby packages
contained
different/modified version of upstream JS files.
AFAICT they're both fine.
rubygem-uglifier includes the main uglify-js via git submodules:
https://github.com/lautis/uglifier/tree/master/vendor
And rubygem-coffee-script-source is just a browser build of
coffee-script. The main coffee-script package will be providing such
a build soon.
I'll file bugs with concrete patches when everything's ready.
-T.C.
9:10 a.m.
Dne 30.5.2014 03:03, T.C. Hollingsworth napsal(a):
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Vít Ondruch
<vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Is it true actually? Last time I was checking the Ruby packages contained
> different/modified version of upstream JS files.
AFAICT they're both fine.
rubygem-uglifier includes the main uglify-js via git submodules:
https://github.com/lautis/uglifier/tree/master/vendor
That is not all. This is actually the Rakefile which prepares the
uglify.js file for uglifier:
https://github.com/lautis/uglifier/blob/master/Rakefile#L34
I.e. the uglifier.js is composed from source-map.js, uglifier.js and
some glue. I can't see any direct conversion path to webassets approach
without patching rubygem-uglifier. May be some loader shim could work.
Not sure. And I don't know how you want to generalize this to some
generic guidelines.
Sorry for being negative :)
Vít
And rubygem-coffee-script-source is just a browser build of
coffee-script. The main coffee-script package will be providing such
a build soon.
I'll file bugs with concrete patches when everything's ready.
-T.C.
3619
days inactive
3645
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jaroslav Reznik -
Miloslav Trmač -
T.C. Hollingsworth -
Vít Ondruch