On 11/21/2014 01:51 PM, Richard Jones wrote: > On 21 November 2014 16:12, Thomas Goirand <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
