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...
[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#In...
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