Re: packaging javascript?

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

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 09:10:02AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> So are you looking for a standard place to install JavaScript
>> libraries for pkgsrc, like ${PREFIX}/lib is for C libraries?
>
> Yes, and more specifically words of wisdom from people have have been
> living with hand-installing these libraries.
>
> It seems obvious that it should go in ${PREFIX}/share/javascript or
> something like that.  These are 'libraries' in some sense, but not in
> the unix sense.  So I would like a sanity check on that.
>
>
> The bigger issue is that there don't seem to be norms for this in the
> javascript community - they seem to expect people to do things by hand.
>
>

My observation is that each web app using one of the common javascript
frameworks will tend to bundle it with its code.  They often include a
slightly modified version or develop to a specific version with little
interest in keeping up-to-date with jquery plugin development.

If tahoe is depending on a user to install his own version of
js-framework-foo, it will still need to dictate where in the docroot
(htdocs) these files must live so it can include them from the html
source.