matthew sporleder <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost> writes: > 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: >> >> Âhttp://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1200 >> Â(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. ÂI'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. ÂUnrelated but similar, there's openlayers. >> >> Âhttp://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/ >> Âhttp://openlayers.org/ >> >> Does anyone have thoughts on packaging these? > > Should this live in htdocs? Does setup.py do anything special? I don't think tahoe's setup.py deals with this yet. But I don't think it belongs in htdocs - I'm not talking about using this on www.netbsd.org, but having it in pkgsrc so that someone running tahoe can depend on this to get the bits present in /usr/pkg/share someplace, rather than having to do it by hand, or have tahoe download the bits at build time, or put the bits in tahoe VC system.
Attachment:
pgpnfRqcj7plo.pgp
Description: PGP signature