> custom built versions for JS libs? you're speaking of forks? Libraries that allow you to combine their modules via web interface [0] with all possible modifications. At least this is more of a usecase for complete web applications than just repacked libraries like rubygem-jquery-rails or rubygem-jquery-ui-rails. For those packaging all modules separately should be enough, but maintaining so many packages is not fun. Wouldn't than make sense to have one jQuery package split into many sub-packages for each module? Also, should all web assets be minified? [0] http://getbootstrap.com/customize/ Josef ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Runge" <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 1:07:29 PM Subject: Re: jquery-ui packaging for use in OpenStack-Dashboard On 29/08/14 12:29, Josef Stribny wrote: > Putting the versions in the name of packages just doesn't feel right. Having too many versions of jquery-something is another story. Yes, I agree. Sadly, I don't see, how we can prevent it; some upstream is quite good in breaking compatibility. Or in this case, upstream re-organized file system layout of jquery-ui. A different distribution prevents us (or OpenStack Dashboard) to use a newer version, because they have too many other packages relying on old layout. I'm not blaming Debian here, they did a really good job in unbundling JavaScript libs. That is something, I'd love to see in Fedora as well. > > And that still doesn't solve a custom-built versions of JS libs. > custom built versions for JS libs? you're speaking of forks? At least on OpenStack Horizon, we're lucky and had the chance to forbid it, although we had some contributors trying to do "quick fixes" in libraries, when they were bundled. Matthias -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
