[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Patternfly] packaging patternfly-sass


For what it's worth, we pretty much "illegally" package the regular
patternfly rpm by bundling up all the dependencies in the rpm.

I need to read up on SCL before I answer your question re: other
ideas. However, I'm on PTO until next Friday :) I can give you more
detailed thoughts then. My initial thought is simply, due to the way
the npm community makes everything so granular, yeah ... we just
needed to bundle regular patternfly for now. And we had SCL (node) as
a long-term idea in mind for how to avoid doing that.

cc'ing Vojtech, Alexander, and Scott, who are also working on /
thinking about this stuff.


On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Daniel Lobato Garcia <me daniellobato me> wrote:
> Hi Patternfly-ers,
> I've been packaging patternfly-sass under the 'tfm' (theforeman) SCL,
> which relies upon the ror41 SCL. Here are the results:
> https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/944
> I only had to package font-awesome-sass and bootstrap-sass in addition
> to it, and update a few dependencies.
> I don't think this would be possible to be served as a standalone
> package in the patternfly copr (https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/patternfly/),
> as it has many dependencies. Making patternfly-sass depend on ror41
> would almost work, but still a few packages like the ones mentioned
> above would need to be maintained. Moreover, it only covers the Ruby use
> case.
> Any better ideas?
> Best,
> --
> Daniel Lobato Garcia
> @dLobatog
> blog.daniellobato.me
> daniellobato.me
> GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A92D6DD38D6DE30
> Keybase: https://keybase.io/elobato

Greg Sheremeta, MBA
Red Hat, Inc.
Sr. Software Engineer
gshereme redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]