On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> 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 materialized. 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. -T.C. _______________________________________________ Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
