Re: packaging javascript?

[matthew sporleder <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> People at tahoe-lafs are struggling with how to depend on javascript
> code used by new code to visualize network performance:
>
>  http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1200
>  (background in http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1170)
>
> tahoe has a goal of being able to just download the source tarball and
> type ./setup.py foo and be able to run; this is not relevant to pkgsrc.
> However, they're running into the problem that js libraries aren't
> culturally aligned with packaging systems.  I'd like to be able to say
> that Protovis is packaged already and that tahoe should just look for
> the bits in $PREFIX/share/javascript/protovis/foo.js, but that seems not
> to be true.  Unrelated but similar, there's openlayers.
>
>  http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/
>  http://openlayers.org/
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on packaging these?
>


Should this live in htdocs?  Does setup.py do anything special?