[openstack-dev] [Horizon] Less compiler dependency

Jordan OMara jomara at redhat.com
Tue Dec 10 18:04:00 UTC 2013

On 11/12/13 01:06 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>On 12/10/2013 11:41 PM, Jiri Tomasek wrote:
>> On 12/09/2013 12:47 PM, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
>>> So I would like to ask everybody, if we can reconsider this dependency
>>> and find some other alternative. I know we moved from nodejs, because
>>> it is packaging nightmare. But honestly, better to invest more into
>>> packaging than being blocked months waiting for features we need to
>>> get in.
>I don't agree, because ... I'll be doing the work! :)
>More seriously, we are much better off NodeJS, and keep everything in
>> So in IRC discussion we agreed to try 3 approaches how to resolve the
>> problem:
>> 1/ Try to dive into Lesscpy and help with making it support Bootstrap 3
>> (and gradually all less features), subsequently keep it up to date.
>That'd be great.
>> 3/ Have production and development environment in Horizon, where
>> development includes nodejs, release compiled css as well as less files.
>> The styling customization would then require user to recompile
>> stylesheets with his changes. On the other hand we'd have nodejs present
>> in development envitonment and be able to use other tools that require it.
>With all due respect, this is a very bad idea.
>If by this, you mean that the release tarballs would ship some
>pre-compiled-in files instead of the original source files, then you are
>effectively making Horizon non-free, and non suitable for Debian main.
>If you want to ship both, then you may as well discard the already
>pre-compiled files, because a package maintainer will never use them. At
>least in Debian, we are *required* to always use the "preferred form for
>modification", whatever that is. This means the package will have to use
>NodeJS and the "development environment" in the build process. So then
>we're back to square one, with a NodeJS packaging nightmare. You'd
>better directly go back to the idea of using NodeJS then, because that
>would be exactly the same.

I'm a bit newer to this conversation than some, but I'm not sure what
exactly the "NodeJS packaging nightmare" is? Isn't it already packaged
for many major distributions?
Jordan O'Mara <jomara at redhat.com>
Red Hat Engineering, Raleigh 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131210/fd4c7622/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list