On 2015-11-06 09:28, Thompson, David wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> wrote:
Hi,
"Thompson, David" <dthomps...@worcester.edu> writes:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
[...]
Does the generated HTML change as a result of using Haunt?
Not as far as I can tell by looking at the patch.
I'm not 100% sure if Haunt really buys us anything in the case of
this
site. Mathieu, do you see any current or potential future advantages
to using Haunt having done this work? I'm really happy to see more
Haunt users, but I also don't want to encourage its use where it
doesn't make sense. :)
For now it provides us a reliable and simple command line interface
for
building the website. My hope for the future is that GuixSD website
will have a smaller code base that will use convenient generic
procedures provided by Haunt. Of course it will depend on what would
make sense to be implemented in Haunt. the first example I have in
mind
is the the RSS/Atom feed importer implemented by Ludo in “www.scm”
(used
by new Guile's website too) which IIUC could be implemented as a Haunt
reader. This would provide somekind of RSS/Atom functional
composability. ;)
WDYT?
Makes sense. Let's see how it goes. :)
Yes, at least for me, and for potential contributors (I think), using
Haunt commands would be very convenient specially for testing the
website while making changes. For example, I'd like to
1. Edit source files.
2. haunt serve
3. Check that everything works in the browser.
4. Commit changes.
The problem with the current tools in the website is that copying the
`static` directory and serving the built site are not automatic steps. I
was using `myscript.scm` with (system) calls to `mkdir -p` directories,
copy the `static` directory to the build directory and serve the latter
with `python3 -m http.server`.
So, if the website can work with Haunt, great :)
--
Luis Felipe López Acevedo
http://sirgazil.bitbucket.org/
