Arun Isaac <arunis...@systemreboot.net> writes: >> So far we have separated packages according to their purpose. There are >> a few exceptions, such as python.scm, which would best be split up. If >> possible I’d rather have JavaScript libraries in modules that indicate >> what their purpose is. General purpose frameworks, on the other hand, >> could very well fit in a javascript.scm. > > I think mathjax being a kind of library, should be put in a > javascript.scm with a "javascript-" prefix. This is similar to the way > we treat python libraries with a "python-" prefix, emacs > packages/libraries with a "emacs-" prefix, etc. WDYT?
Sounds good. I would prefer a shorter prefix, though, such as “js-”. We use “cl-” for Common Lisp, and I’m glad I don’t need to type so much :) > Pjotr Prins writes: > >> We also have clojurescript, purescript, elm and others to consider - >> even if they generate JS. Is JS going to be our object format? > > That's an interesting question. Should we even install the source code > after compiling these various languages to javascript? I am in favor of > only installing the compiled javascript to some path like > share/javascript/projectname/ Yes, only installing the compiled/minified JavaScript sounds like the right thing to do. Users can get the original sources with “guix build -S”. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net
