1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
|
I've prepared a bootstrap branch based on
<https://github.com/gsliepen/ikistrap>.
Main impediment to merging it is jquery; bootstrap probably needs
a newer version than the 1.6.2 included in ikiwiki and upgrading
it would need testing the parts of ikiwiki that use jquery.
It also needs to include bootstrap 4 in ikiwiki, rather than pulling
it from the CDN, probably. Although depending on a debian package
would be nicer, if bootstrap 4 got packaged in Debian.
Note that the template changes are not entirely optimial, but I
did them in a way that makes the diff pretty clear that nothing changes
except when the bootstrap theme is enabled.
--[[Joey]]
> [bootstrap3 is in debian](https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/twitter-bootstrap3).
> As far as I know, there is no effort to package b4 just yet,
> maybe a RFP?
>
> My work on bootstrap also involved some changes to the base templates,
> not sure there is a way to work around that. --[[anarcat]]
>> As for not tampering with template files, the only way I found to
>> work around this is to rename the desired bootstrap classes to the
>> ones that the default ikiwiki template wants (toc, map, etc.).
>> What this means is copying css code from `bootstrap.css` to the `styles.css`.
>> [See for yourself](https://notabug.org/iikb/ikiwiki-theme-bootstrap/commit/7f30630b6255336a34b14f70f2a674e15cd797a0) - don't mind the red parts.
>> This is tedious and boring, it's easier to tamper with template files
>> than to rewrite bootstrap by copying and pasting it. --[[desci]]
> Is there any progress here? Someone wanting to build a Bootstrap 4
> should look at working with this branch or a custom theme?
>
> For the record, there is a Debian package for
> [font-awesome][]. [mkdocs-bootstrap][] uses
> that. [sphinx-bootstrap-theme][] is another bootstrap-based theme
> packaged in Debian. Both ship embeded copies of Bootstrap 3, so
> there are prior offenses to just shipping the code within the
> package.
>
> It would be preferable to package bootstrap 4 seperately of
> course... I made a [RFP for packaging B4](http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=842828).
>
> I was somehow under the impression that Boostrap 4 was lighter, but
> looking at the actual code on the alpha site makes me think that it
> is actually larger, which reduces the incentives for me to do the
> upgrade... Along with jquery, it's a 100KB overhead on first load,
> something that shouldn't be neglected. The [alpha site][] is around
> 1MB and 25 requests! My site can currently squeeze all of jquery and
> boostrap in 80KB (including the glyphs font) and it's only that
> stupid Mozilla Fira font that makes it blow up to 300KB... So I am
> not sure I would switch to B4 - maybe doing a B3 merge would be best
> for now, especially since Bootstrap 3 is already packaged in Debian?
> -- [[anarcat]]
[alpha site]: https://v4-alpha.getbootstrap.com
[bug #704330]: https://bugs.debian.org/704330
[orphaned]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/twitter-bootstrap
[sphinx-bootstrap-theme]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/sphinx-bootstrap-theme
[mkdocs-bootstrap]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/mkdocs-bootstrap
[font-awesome]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-font-awesome
|