On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
> Quoting T.C. Hollingsworth (2013-08-15 22:23:27)
>> On 08/15/2013 05:53 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> My proposed /usr/share/javascript is equally ugly, slightly longer,
>>> also less likely to clash, and additionally is usable offline.
>>> What I suggest is that Debian and Fedora (and other distros) do _not_
>>> coordinate on a unified path to use, but mirror in html the
>>> filesystem path (relative from the root of the local system) where
>>> the files are actually stored - so as to support offline use (where
>>> applicable).
>> I get what your going for here, but if we decided to go this route,
>> within hours there would be a Slashdot article with the headline:
>> Debian and Fedora Agree to Share /usr On the Web By Default
>> You may think I'm joking, but I'm not.
> No, I don't think you are joking.  But I would appreciate you
> elaborating more on why you find it a bad approach: Slashdot is
> irrelevant to me.

There's nothing wrong with it, I just think we should have something
shorter and less likely to result in an uproar.  I'm happy with making
it work, so you can just share /usr/share/doc as /doc and everything
can work fine.  That makes a lot of sense to me.

It doesn't make any sense to me to hardcode a filesystem path into
applications written in dynamic languages that you'll never be able to
just open with Firefox anyway.  There's a reason there's a separate
namespace for content served over HTTP.

>> I like the idea of making http://fooserver/usr/share/javascript/ work
>> so offline content can be shared online with no difficulty, but I
>> don't see the need to make that the primarily advertised entrypoint.
>> There's lots of stuff that is only ever going to with with HTTP
>> daemons, and we should make it easier on them.
> Uhm, how can it be anything but "primarily advertised"?
>> Part of what we're competing with is evil CDNs where you can just
>> copy-and-paste a blurb and get your JS (and let some evil empire track
>> your users) instantly.  Our only chance to compete is if we make it
>> dead simple for people to take advantage of a better alternative.  A
>> big part of that is simply "URLs that don't suck to type".  ;-)
>>> It might make sense to then coordinate on a unified path for
>>> _storing_ javascript files (and perhaps also on naming of
>>> (non-)uglified flavors, JS-specific CSS and other files.  But such
>>> coordination makes best sense for me to do in the File Hierarchy
>>> Standard.
>> Unforunately the last attempt to update the FHS seems to have died
>> without even a bang.  :-(
> Meaning what?  That Fedora consider it irrelevant to follow FHS at all?

Meaning that life goes on in absence of any renewed effort there.
There was a lot of time spent trying to work out an FHS 3 that never

Lots of different developers from various distros were able to agree
on adding a directory (/run) to the root hierarchy!  Surely we can
agree on standardizing on a couple directories in /usr/share, where we
have free reign according to the FHS anyway.

>> We seem to at least both be happy with /usr/share/javascript.
> If you are also happy with that, then yes.


Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to