On 08/12/2013 03:23 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
want to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea
Sorry, I missed this:
and the Feature says:
"Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
are out of sync that it is difficult to understand what will go to each
>> used on
>> the local system, not served via a web server to a browser. These
>> clearly have all the standard reasons to avoid duplication."
> The preamble before this and the Install Location section afterward
> Node.js modules, which live in directories of their own,
tied to an specific runtime, there are
So, where do I put the code for a reusable, non web based, or runtime
Packaging Guidelines", it should standardize something for them, if it
> but the rest
> of the guidelines still apply to them.
If everything else apply to them, I don't see why a Node.js application
or a GNOME Shell extension need to pull a package named web-assets, it
is a wrong name, plain and simple, and worse If they don't store
> I don't really need to repeat that in every paragraph, do I?
>> and later it contradict what you say, indicating that they must use
>> "BuildRequires: web-assets-devel" and
>> "Requires: web-assets-filesystem"
>> of web-assets
> web-assets-filesystem contains a handful of directories and symlinks.
> It does not drag in Apache configuration.
> web-assets-devel defines a few RPM macros. It also does not drag in
> Apache configuration.
> web-assets-httpd contains the Apache configuration. js-foo libraries
> MUST not depend on it, since they could be used with any HTTP daemon.