Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
We currently don't have a package for jquery-ui in Fedora, e.g Debian has.
The version debian has, is 1.10.1, latest release from jquery-ui upstream is 1.11.1
Of course, both versions are not that compatible, some files were renamed, etc.
Would it be ok to package 1.10.1 for Fedora instead of latest version?
openstack-dashboard would be the first package to depend on this.
Matthias
On 29/08/14 09:57, Matthias Runge wrote:
Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
Forgot to add the link to the review upstream: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113184/
Matthias
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:00:56AM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 29/08/14 09:57, Matthias Runge wrote:
Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
Forgot to add the link to the review upstream: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113184/
Have you consider making a jquery-ui1.10 compat package?
Pierre
On 29/08/14 10:26, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:00:56AM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 29/08/14 09:57, Matthias Runge wrote:
Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
Forgot to add the link to the review upstream: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113184/
Have you consider making a jquery-ui1.10 compat package?
I was considering to use XStatic-* packages. XStatic provides a way to package js-libs to be installable via pip, thus making it convenient for upstream projects.
Using compat libs would result in a whole bunch of packages, one for each versioned version.
I'm not saying, this is a bad idea in general, but I'd love to see a more fashionable way.
Matthias
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:24:39PM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 29/08/14 10:26, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:00:56AM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 29/08/14 09:57, Matthias Runge wrote:
Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
Forgot to add the link to the review upstream: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113184/
Have you consider making a jquery-ui1.10 compat package?
I was considering to use XStatic-* packages. XStatic provides a way to package js-libs to be installable via pip, thus making it convenient for upstream projects.
XStatic-* sounds quite nice but I don't see how exactly they solve the problem of packaging webapps. Could you explain what you have in mind?
Thanks, Pierre
On 29/08/14 12:40, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:24:39PM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 29/08/14 10:26, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:00:56AM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 29/08/14 09:57, Matthias Runge wrote:
Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
Forgot to add the link to the review upstream: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113184/
Have you consider making a jquery-ui1.10 compat package?
I was considering to use XStatic-* packages. XStatic provides a way to package js-libs to be installable via pip, thus making it convenient for upstream projects.
XStatic-* sounds quite nice but I don't see how exactly they solve the problem of packaging webapps. Could you explain what you have in mind?
They don't package webapps. In OpenStack, every package requirement upstream is installed via pip install. OpenStack Dashboard is written in Django. Django uses the concept of putting all static files within a app. A django included script walks through all installed apps and pulls static files into one defined static assets dir.
XStatic-foo packages solve two issues here: provide pip packaging of JavaScript libs (thus making them installable in a test enviroment) and also make those Javascript files relocatable in the file system.
This way, I can place them conforming to Web Assets Feature in %{_jsdir} and still have the mapping via python-XStatic.
Matthias
I think that we will have a hard time to use unbundled JS libs for all the packages. For instance I already submitted rubygem-jquery-ui-rails[0] for a review. It bundles 1.11.0 which is something between latest and the version you want to depend on. That's one of the reasons I didn't unbundle it for my package. Seems like even for two packages (mine and yours) it's already hard to use the same version (and try to submit a review for the latest version at the same time).....
Josef
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122939
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Runge" mrunge@matthias-runge.de To: packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 9:57:57 AM Subject: [Fedora-packaging] jquery-ui packaging for use in OpenStack-Dashboard
Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
We currently don't have a package for jquery-ui in Fedora, e.g Debian has.
The version debian has, is 1.10.1, latest release from jquery-ui upstream is 1.11.1
Of course, both versions are not that compatible, some files were renamed, etc.
Would it be ok to package 1.10.1 for Fedora instead of latest version?
openstack-dashboard would be the first package to depend on this.
Matthias -- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
On 29/08/14 10:18, Josef Stribny wrote:
I think that we will have a hard time to use unbundled JS libs for all the packages. For instance I already submitted rubygem-jquery-ui-rails[0] for a review. It bundles 1.11.0 which is something between latest and the version you want to depend on. That's one of the reasons I didn't unbundle it for my package. Seems like even for two packages (mine and yours) it's already hard to use the same version (and try to submit a review for the latest version at the same time).....
Josef
That may be true, but unbundling is IMHO still the right thing to do. Debian was able to do it as well, and their constraints are currently a bit harder than ours, as they already have dependencies on their included version.
Matthias
That may be true, but unbundling is IMHO still the right thing to do.
Using compat libs would result in a whole bunch of packages, one for
each versioned version.
It is. Although I would rather like to have support for multiple versions of packages in dnf (and associated tools) which would address this and also our RubyGems usecase.
Putting the versions in the name of packages just doesn't feel right. Having too many versions of jquery-something is another story.
And that still doesn't solve a custom-built versions of JS libs.
Josef
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Runge" mrunge@matthias-runge.de To: packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:12:00 PM Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] jquery-ui packaging for use in OpenStack-Dashboard
On 29/08/14 10:18, Josef Stribny wrote:
I think that we will have a hard time to use unbundled JS libs for all the packages. For instance I already submitted rubygem-jquery-ui-rails[0] for a review. It bundles 1.11.0 which is something between latest and the version you want to depend on. That's one of the reasons I didn't unbundle it for my package. Seems like even for two packages (mine and yours) it's already hard to use the same version (and try to submit a review for the latest version at the same time).....
Josef
That may be true, but unbundling is IMHO still the right thing to do. Debian was able to do it as well, and their constraints are currently a bit harder than ours, as they already have dependencies on their included version.
Matthias
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
On 29/08/14 12:29, Josef Stribny wrote:
Putting the versions in the name of packages just doesn't feel right. Having too many versions of jquery-something is another story.
Yes, I agree. Sadly, I don't see, how we can prevent it; some upstream is quite good in breaking compatibility. Or in this case, upstream re-organized file system layout of jquery-ui. A different distribution prevents us (or OpenStack Dashboard) to use a newer version, because they have too many other packages relying on old layout.
I'm not blaming Debian here, they did a really good job in unbundling JavaScript libs. That is something, I'd love to see in Fedora as well.
And that still doesn't solve a custom-built versions of JS libs.
custom built versions for JS libs? you're speaking of forks? At least on OpenStack Horizon, we're lucky and had the chance to forbid it, although we had some contributors trying to do "quick fixes" in libraries, when they were bundled.
Matthias
custom built versions for JS libs? you're speaking of forks?
Libraries that allow you to combine their modules via web interface [0] with all possible modifications. At least this is more of a usecase for complete web applications than just repacked libraries like rubygem-jquery-rails or rubygem-jquery-ui-rails.
For those packaging all modules separately should be enough, but maintaining so many packages is not fun. Wouldn't than make sense to have one jQuery package split into many sub-packages for each module?
Also, should all web assets be minified?
[0] http://getbootstrap.com/customize/
Josef
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Runge" mrunge@matthias-runge.de To: packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 1:07:29 PM Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] jquery-ui packaging for use in OpenStack-Dashboard
On 29/08/14 12:29, Josef Stribny wrote:
Putting the versions in the name of packages just doesn't feel right. Having too many versions of jquery-something is another story.
Yes, I agree. Sadly, I don't see, how we can prevent it; some upstream is quite good in breaking compatibility. Or in this case, upstream re-organized file system layout of jquery-ui. A different distribution prevents us (or OpenStack Dashboard) to use a newer version, because they have too many other packages relying on old layout.
I'm not blaming Debian here, they did a really good job in unbundling JavaScript libs. That is something, I'd love to see in Fedora as well.
And that still doesn't solve a custom-built versions of JS libs.
custom built versions for JS libs? you're speaking of forks? At least on OpenStack Horizon, we're lucky and had the chance to forbid it, although we had some contributors trying to do "quick fixes" in libraries, when they were bundled.
Matthias
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:57:57 +0200 Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de wrote:
Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
We currently don't have a package for jquery-ui in Fedora, e.g Debian has.
The version debian has, is 1.10.1, latest release from jquery-ui upstream is 1.11.1
Of course, both versions are not that compatible, some files were renamed, etc.
Would it be ok to package 1.10.1 for Fedora instead of latest version?
openstack-dashboard would be the first package to depend on this.
I think this is a case for the Web Assets feature [1] and in my opinion you should start using versioned package names (jquiry-ui-110, jquery-ui-111, etc), because there might be others with different requirements, eg. Kimchi (currently under review [2]) uses 1.10.3 (I hope try are at least compatible among the micro versions)
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126990
Dan
On 29/08/14 10:18, Dan Horák wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:57:57 +0200 Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de wrote:
Hey there,
currently we're unbundling all used JavaScript libraries upstream in Horizon aka. OpenStack Dashboard.
We currently don't have a package for jquery-ui in Fedora, e.g Debian has.
The version debian has, is 1.10.1, latest release from jquery-ui upstream is 1.11.1
Of course, both versions are not that compatible, some files were renamed, etc.
Would it be ok to package 1.10.1 for Fedora instead of latest version?
openstack-dashboard would be the first package to depend on this.
I think this is a case for the Web Assets feature [1] and in my opinion you should start using versioned package names (jquiry-ui-110, jquery-ui-111, etc), because there might be others with different requirements, eg. Kimchi (currently under review [2]) uses 1.10.3 (I hope try are at least compatible among the micro versions)
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126990
In fact, I am using Web Assets, putting those JS libs to %{_jsdir}/(upstream name).
Actually, I was considering to use 1.10.4, which is packaged as XStatic-jquery-ui on pypi.
Matthias
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dan Horák -
Josef Stribny -
Matthias Runge -
Pierre-Yves Chibon