GNU bug report logs - #26006
[Website] Integral update proposal

Previous Next

Full log

Message #83 received at 26006 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: sirgazil <sirgazil <at> zoho.com>
To: Catonano <catonano <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 26006 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 David Thompson <davet <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#26006: [Website] Integral update proposal
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:45:37 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 04/07/17 15:09, Catonano wrote:
>
>
> 2017-07-04 22:00 GMT+02:00 sirgazil <sirgazil <at> zoho.com 
> <mailto:sirgazil <at> zoho.com>>:
>
>     Hey :)
>
>
>
>     On 01/07/17 09:26, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>         Hi sirgazil,
>
>         Slowly trying to catch up…
>
>         sirgazil <sirgazil <at> zoho.com <mailto:sirgazil <at> zoho.com>> skribis:
>
>             This implementation is missing the following parts:
>
>             1. New screenshots
>             2. Packages pages
>                 1. Package detail page
>                 2. Packages issues page
>                 3. Packages reproducibility page
>                 4. Packages JSON file
>
>             To complete part (1) someone could provide the screenshots
>             (ideally
>             1920×1080 px) in JPG and add them to the
>             "static/media/img" directory,
>             and update the list of screenshots in "apps/base/data.scm".
>
>         Since “someone” has not shown up yet ;-), maybe we can delay
>         (1), no?
>
>             To complete (2), there are some package related procedures
>             missing
>             (https://bitbucket.org/sirgazil/guixsd-website/issues?status=new&status=open
>             <https://bitbucket.org/sirgazil/guixsd-website/issues?status=new&status=open>).
>             I tried to use the code that is already in the current
>             website, but
>             couldn't figure things out.
>
>             To complete part (2.1), there is an issue to solve:
>             package pages go in
>             paths like "/packages/blender-3.0/", but running "haunt
>             build" with
>             pages on paths that include "." will render the pages with
>             all the HTML
>             content inside a pre element. David, the maintainer of
>             Haunt, does not
>             know yet why this would happen. If this issue is solved,
>             there are
>             already helper builders in "apps/packages/builders.scm" to
>             generate all
>             the pages.
>
>         Was this issue fixed in the meantime?  David?
>
>             So, for now, the packages pages are working as in the
>             current website,
>             but not using tables (to make it easier to adapt the page
>             to several
>             screen widths), and packages are distributed in numbered
>             pages to avoid
>             big HTML pages that take too long to load.
>
>             Also, the JavaScript code that gets package build status
>             is not
>             integrated (couldn't figure this one out either).
>
>         Did you have a chance to look at whether you could include the
>         existing
>         code?  After all, the code is already there so we should be
>         able to just
>         “move” it to its new home without further ado.
>
>         If that’s more complicated that this, then maybe we can ask
>         for help
>         from Alex Sassmannshausen, or simply delay it.
>
>             To complete (2.2), (2.3), and (2.4) someone could add
>             helper builders to
>             the packages app, and recycle the related SXML pages
>             already used in the
>             current website.
>
>         Likewise, can’t we just reuse the existing code?  I haven’t looked
>         closely but I imagine we won’t have to rewrite all of these from
>         scratch.
>
>         How can we proceed?  I wouldn’t want to let the fancy web site
>         bitrot!
>         I’m a bit swamped though so it would be more productive if you
>         could
>         directly hack on it on the repo, but I think you were
>         unwilling to do
>         this?  Thoughts?  :-)
>
>
>     I was going to take a look again, and see what I could do to
>     complete the thing, but during the application setup of guix
>     0.13.0 many things were being built and the computer turned off
>     three times. It seems it can't take that job (I didn't have this
>     problem with 0.12.0, though).
>
>     So I don't know what to do 
>
>
> computers need manteinance
>
> This could be a sign that your computer needs a refreshing of its 
> thermal grease and a cleaning of its grates.
>
> Usually when you do that, it becomes an almost new machine and can 
> compile lots of stuff. That's my experience, by the way.

I'll see if I can do something about it.

> Another thing you could do is wait for a better building servers park 
> to be available for Guix
>
> Rekado has mentioned that an improvement is in the pipe, to be 
> delivered soonish
>
> With that you could find way more binaries ready for use and you won't 
> need your own computer to compile them
>
> Ludo is way more competent and informed than I am, though, so he might 
> have some better suggestion.

Thanks, Catonano :)

-- 
https://sirgazil.bitbucket.io/

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.