Hi,
I have submitted a review request of bootstrap-sass [0] and after a discussion with Troy, we kinda agreed to ship only what is included in vendor/assets/stylesheets and leave out the javascripts folder.
Whereas this might seem like a solution by the standards of Fedora guidelines [1], I am curious whether this package will work after all. (Please take a moment to read our discussion. I thought that it would be better to further discuss it here for future reference.)
If we don't ship the javascript folder, then a rails developer wouldn't have to also install Twitter bootstrap separately for this to work?
There is also a gem named twitter-bootstrap-rails [2] that does the same job but ships the native less css. So, I get it that a rails app can have either one of these gems, right? If that's the case, I think we must ship the javascripts of each gem, even if this seems like bundling.
On a side note, I have been following the packaging ML and the discussion about the guideline drafts on web assets and javascript [3]. In that case, it would make sense to split the javascripts and place them in `_assetdir` as stated by [4]. I think bootstrap-sass case falls in second bullet.
tl;dr; gems that use bundled javascript code should ship it until guidelines[3] become official.
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982679 [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_li... [2] https://github.com/seyhunak/twitter-bootstrap-rails [3] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-July/009304.html [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/JavaScript#Insta...
Dne 15.7.2013 13:13, Axilleas Pipinellis napsal(a):
Hi,
I have submitted a review request of bootstrap-sass [0] and after a discussion with Troy, we kinda agreed to ship only what is included in vendor/assets/stylesheets and leave out the javascripts folder.
Whereas this might seem like a solution by the standards of Fedora guidelines [1], I am curious whether this package will work after all. (Please take a moment to read our discussion. I thought that it would be better to further discuss it here for future reference.)
If we don't ship the javascript folder, then a rails developer wouldn't have to also install Twitter bootstrap separately for this to work?
There is also a gem named twitter-bootstrap-rails [2] that does the same job but ships the native less css. So, I get it that a rails app can have either one of these gems, right? If that's the case, I think we must ship the javascripts of each gem, even if this seems like bundling.
On a side note, I have been following the packaging ML and the discussion about the guideline drafts on web assets and javascript [3]. In that case, it would make sense to split the javascripts and place them in `_assetdir` as stated by [4]. I think bootstrap-sass case falls in second bullet.
tl;dr; gems that use bundled javascript code should ship it until guidelines[3] become official.
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982679 [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_li... [2] https://github.com/seyhunak/twitter-bootstrap-rails [3] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-July/009304.html [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/JavaScript#Insta...
I would use the JS exception. It is the same case as jQuery. Once there will be JS guidelines, I would fix the package (not that I think it will be that easy :/). Removing the JS from boostrap would make it unexpectedly broken IMO.
Vít
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Achilleas Pipinellis -
Vít Ondruch