web-assets-httpd stuck in limbo?

T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth at gmail.com
Sun Jan 19 00:51:40 UTC 2014


Sorry, left the list out when I sent this before.  Here it is for
everyone, with updates...

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:59 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
<tchollingsworth at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I kind of dropped the ball on this.  :-(
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I've been looking at more webapp unbundling stuff over the last couple
>> of days (as anyone following my G+ feed probably noticed...) and I just
>> noticed that web-assets-httpd is still not being built. The last note
>> was back in August:
>>
>> * Fri Aug 16 2013 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth at gmail.com> - 4-1
>> - temporarily disable httpd stuff while we're waiting on sorting out the
>>   directory
>>
>> that leads me back to a devel@ thread from around that time which in
>> turn links to a discussion where we were hoping to come up with
>> something compatible with Debian:
>>
>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/2013-August/005888.html
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=553173
>>
>> but both that thread and that bug report seem to have petered out, with
>> no movement.
>>
>> Is there discussion going on about this in some other forum, still? Or
>> is it sort of in limbo?
>
> Yeah that went nowhere really fast.  For those not willing to sift
> through the old threads , the responses from the Debian folks were:
>
> * One suggestion to use http://localhost/usr/share/javascript/
> instead.  (Umm, no.)
>
> * Insistence that we sit around and wait until the FHS is updated.
> (Can I get a special badge for submitting a feature for Fedora 40?)
>
> * Another individual thought that all web authors are stupid for
> wanting to use fancy fonts and that I am wasting my time.  (He might
> be right about that last bit... :-P)
>
> * A suggestion to use the term "libraries" instead of "assets" (This
> came up on devel also, but I'm really not a fan of calling random
> JS/CSS/icon spaghetti "libraries".  I think it's more confusing than
> it is helpful, but if everyone's really in love with it, whatever.)
>
> * A desire to dot-prefix the directory (e.g.
> http://localhost/.sysassets instead of / _sysassets) it might get
> implemented as a symlink with some http daemons.  (I'm cool with
> this.)
>
>> I have unbundling of Roundcube's tiny_mce via an alias
>> to /usr/share/javascript/tiny_mce working fine, but it requires the
>> httpd .conf snippet that allows access to /usr/share/javascript , which
>> is part of web-assets-httpd...
>
> Yeah that's blocking a few things.  I need to drop into the FPC
> meeting tommorrow to ask about nodejs stuff anyway so I'll ask if
> they're okay with just proceeding with the directory dot-prefixed
> instead or if I need to go through the whole song-and-dance first.
> (I'm kind of itchy about implementing something different from the
> approved guidelines even though it's just a period...)

Thursday went like the rest of my week and I didn't get a chance to
pop in to the FPC meeting.  :-(

I'm going to just go ahead and file a ticket for a guidelines update,
there are a couple of other issues that have come up since they were
passed that need to be fixed anyway.  I'm double-checking all the past
discussions for issues that cropped up for things to fix, if there are
others that you want addressed please speak up now.  :-)

>> On another track, the web assets change seems to suggest the use of
>> symlinks for unbundling things as a strategy to avoid divergence from
>> upstream in cases where they aren't being nice and providing a proper
>> variable for the path name that we can change or whatever, but I think
>> any attempt to use symlinks to unbundle things that have previously been
>> bundled is going to run head-on into the 'rpm can't convert directories
>> to symlinks' problem.
>>
>> symlinks might be a better approach than Aliases, now I come to think of
>> it, since it's all well and good shipping httpd config files but it
>> doesn't help anyone using another web server...but I can't really use a
>> symlink approach without a good solution to the directory-to-symlink
>> problem, which we still don't seem to have.
>
> Grr, I guess I'll look back over that thread and write up a packaging
> draft for that because we badly need it.

So I came up with this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/Symlink_Workarounds

Suggestions welcome, and please feel free to just edit obvious stuff
directly in the wiki.  :-)

FPC ticket is at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/385

>> I guess the cleanest approach would be to try and get a patch upstreamed
>> which specifies a variable for the path to the bundled stuff and have
>> our package set that variable accordingly...but that would require
>> web-assets-httpd also.
>
> I will comment more on this after I've read everything you wrote in
> the bug. Though from the bits and pieces I picked up skimming over the
> bugmail on my phone earlier, I think may need to break into the bottle
> of whiskey I usually reserve for patching V8 first.  ;-)
>
> -T.C.


More information about the devel mailing list