dmalcolm 2008-07-21: I've submitted a jsmin package for review as: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507
The following metadata was found in MoinMoin that could not be converted to a useful value in MediaWiki:
- : Apache config file to load MochiKit from /MochiKit/
mootools is much better now; there are direct download links for the "enchilada" builds, but projects are still encouraged to use the customizer to build just what they need. In many ways this makes sense, because these files may be sent to millions of clients, but it doesn't get along with general packaging.
One possibility would simply be to carry a couple of customized versions as needed by other packages if there's actually a real space savings.
Some questions:
- Do we need a naming standard for various compressed versions?
- Do we need to generate the compressed versions ourselves, or is it permissible to get them from upstream?
- If multiple versions (say, of mootools with different modules enabled), do we need a naming standard for that?
- I think it's obvious that we'll soon run into the problem of different packages needing different javascript library versions, since upstreams expect packages to simply code to the version that they copied. Should we consider having multiple upstream versions in one package as necessary, or would we force them to be in different packages?
Also, some projects like zoneminder actually want to see the javascript files located in their web space. Should it be permissible to symlink to the files as necessary instead of coding things such that clients are diverted to the specific /js web space for those files?
- Tibbs 00:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)