Open Stack

On 11/21/2014 01:51 PM, Richard Jones wrote:
> On 21 November 2014 16:12, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org
> <mailto:zigo at debian.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 11/21/2014 10:52 AM, Richard Jones wrote:
>     >     On 11/18/2014 04:22 PM, Radomir Dopieralski wrote:
>     >     > If we use Bower, we don't need to use Xstatic. It would be pure
>     >     > overhead. Bower already takes care of tracking releases and versions,
>     >     > and of bundling the files. All we need is a simple line in the
>     >     > settings.py telling Django where it puts all the files -- we don't
>     >     > really need Xstatic just for that. The packagers can then take those
>     >     > Bower packages and turn them into system packages, and just add/change
>     >     > the paths in settings.py to where they put the files. All in one
>     >     > place.
>     >
>     >     The issue is that there's often not just a single path, but a full
>     >     directory structure to address. That is easily managed with a Debian
>     >     xstatic package, not sure how it would be with Bower.
>     >
>     >
>     > I'm not sure what the difference is (unless it's just related to the
>     > Debian-specific historical issue you raise below). xstatic and bower are
>     > remarkably similar a directory to be packaged and some meta-data
>     > describing it.
> 
>     Let me explain again then.
> 
>     Let's say there's python-xstatic-foo, and libjs-foo in Debian. If the
>     directory structure of libjs-foo is very different from xstatic-foo, I
>     can address that issue with symlinks within the xstatic package. Just
>     changing the BASE_DIR may not be enough, as libjs-foo may have files
>     organized in a very different way than in the upstream package for foo.
> 
> 
> OK, so python-xstatic-foo can depend on libjs-foo and just symlink, fair
> enough. I'm still not sure what makes bower unique in this respect,

I was under the impression that I wouldn't be able to do the same
symlink thing with Bower. If I am, then great!

> although it'd be nice to avoid creating additional packages just to
> symlink things around for bower, which I think is what you're getting at.

Just to make sure: we're not moving away from the current already
existing xstatic packages are we?

Also, yes, if I can avoid to have a bower package, that'd be great. But
not sure how. It worked with the XStatic packages, and my main concern
about switching to bower is exactly that: how is it going to work
compared to XStatic stuff.

>     > Again; bower is not npm! Jasmine is a command-line program which is
>     > packaged by npm. Bower packages bundles of stuff that are included in
>     > web applications. bower itself, a command-line tool, is packaged by npm,
>     > but itself manages other packages which are not command-line things, but
>     > just bundles of css, javascript, images, fonts, etc. that are resources
>     > for web applications to use.
> 
>     Sure. But how do I download a bower package then?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the meaning behind this question. "bower
> install angular" downloads a bower package called "angular".

Isn't there is a simple URL that I may use with wget? I don't really
want to use bower directly, I just would like to have a look to the
content of the bower package.

Thomas