On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Paul Hummer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gary and Maris (and other Launchpad devs): > > The lazr-js build system is starting to get a little long in the > tooth. One of the biggest issues we've had recently is managing the > python dependencies that go along with the sdist, specifically in how > the dependencies differ between launchpad and landscape. > > I wonder if it would be better if we could just store the lazr-js > directly in our tree. I think it would go a long way to making it > easier to upgrade lazr-js in Launchpad (and reduce complication in both > the lazr-js and launchpad build systems). > > I'm wondering if you see any terrible, terrible things about this > plan.
There's always pros and cons. For Landscape we are not using the Python part of lazr-js, except for the part that extracts the module information, which is quite generic. In fact, now that I think of it, most of the Python code in lazr-js is quite generic, and could be separated from the javascript part. In Landscape, we're adding the javascript from lazr-js directly into our tree and using a Makefile to concatenate and minify. -- Sidnei _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
