> I also wondered if mathjax should be broken up into js-mathjax and
> font-mathjax, since it is 180MiB or so. Some distros even just delete
> some of the fonts.
I'm working on this as well. I'll send patches adding js-mathjax and
font-mathjax once they are ready.
Ricardo Wurmus 於 2017-05-26 18:17 寫道:
> Arun Isaac writes:
>
> [...]
> I would be in favour of doing it the Debian way. It’s difficult to draw
> a line between a web application and a JavaScript library, so I’d rather
> not have to make a decision like that each time we package something
> writte
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Arun Isaac 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
Arun Isaac 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 framework
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>> The patch I submitted simply extracts the mathjax tarball into
>> /share/webapps/mathjax. Arch/Parabola use this kind of "webapps"
>> path. But, Debian puts it in /share/javascript/mathjax. So far, we have
>> not adopted any convention for Guix. What path convention shou
Arun Isaac writes:
> A couple of days back, I submitted a patch packaging mathjax. My
> conversations with Brendan there raised some more general questions. So,
> I'm posting here for wider visibility.
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27049
>
> The patch I submitted simply extra
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30:25PM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote:
> There are so many javascript libraries out there -- mathjax, d3.js,
> jquery, etc, etc. Packaging them would be extremely useful for
> self-hosting. But, we need to agree on good practices, so that we don't
> run into trouble later.
Goo
