Re: Build question

> My frustration derives from some of the comments in the fedora bug
> tracker, so sorry about that!
>
> The number of people that know the Java side of G2 is very small.
> Perhaps one of them will chime in here, but to compare it to the way G2
> is packaged in Fedora currently, most of the work on that was a long
> time ago.
>
> Per your options:
>
> 1. G2 is a PHP webapp so getting it from a vendor instead of through a
> packaging system isn't too bad. I have bunches of Gentoo, CentOS, and
> Debian systems all running PHP applications, and I've never liked using
> the distro's package management system to install them.
>
> 2. G2 will work without the Java components, just the fancy
> drag-and-drop uploader won't be there and it won't work with DB2.  There
> are plenty of other upload methods available, so this shouldn't be that
> big of a deal.
>
> 3.  I'd agree that it's not worth the time. Either of the above are a
> much better idea.
>
> G3 Beta 1 should be next and should be soon.  You can see what is left here:
>
> http://apps.sourceforge.net/trac/gallery/roadmap
>
> I think work is finishing up on the G2 importer which should be in Beta
> 1 in a functional form.  Albums/Images/Users should all transfer over,
> but since the feature set of G3 is a lot smaller, there will be things
> that don't transfer over (like all kinds of sizes for resizes,
> permissions, etc)
>
> -Chris
>
> Jon Ciesla wrote:
>  
>> Some, yes, that bug was closed automatically, and I was asked not to
>> pursue such topics in the bug tracker in 2750571.
>>
>> At any rate, I would agree that it seems like quite a lot of work to
>> build the java components.  I am a complete stranger to Java, and by
>> "build the ImageTools jar", I meant re-compose it from it's extracted
>> contents, which is not nearly as far as I need to be.
>>
>> My point is not that you're disregarding the letter of the GPL, since
>> the source is publicly available, just that some might misinterpret the
>> effort required to obtain the full source as disregarding the spirit of
>> the GPL, since though available, it's not as if one can say "download
>> tarball X from URL Y".  I'd love to see the process documented
>> somewhere, but that's neither here nor there.
>>
>> I understand that with G3 being imminent, G2 is effectively dead.  The
>> catch is, I don't know when G3 is coming, and G2 is already in Fedora
>> and has been for some time.  The packages currently available for
>> gallery in Fedora contain prebuilt jars.  Gallery should not have been
>> packaged this way in the first place, but that was done more than 3
>> years ago and is pretty much water under the bridge.
>>
>> The situation I find myself in as the new maintainer is that the package
>> as it stands violates Fedora's legal guidelines, and has a large user
>> base.  This leaves me with the following choices:
>>      1. Drop G2 from Fedora and package G3 (which presumably will not
>> have this problem) at it's release.  This would be very disappointing.
>> Perhaps (and understandably) not for you, but for Fedora's G2 users,
>> myself included.
>>    2. Push a version of G2 minus the .jar files.  This would almost
>> certainly break G2, correct?
>>    3. Build the java bits from source.  Laborious, as it turns out, and
>> possibly not worth the time if G3 is coming soon.
>>
>> So, I guess, unless someone else knows of a simpler way to grab and
>> build the source, I'd like to know an ETA for G3, how the upgrade
>> process looks from G2 to G3, and if a jarless G2 would work at all.  G3
>> Alpha 3 is nearly a  month old, and based on the timing of Alpha 2, I'd
>> guess either Alpha 4, or a Beta of some type might be next, but that's
>> subject to my ignorance of your schedule. :)
>>
>> Chris Kelly wrote:
>>    
>>> Didn't you cover some of this in the bug thread?
>>>
>>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2585568&group_id=7130&atid=107130
>>>
>>>
>>> "With some wrangling, I've been able to build the ImageTools jar"
>>>
>>> And we agreed that you could pull out the db2 stuff.
>>>
>>> It unfortunate that the Java things in Gallery 2 are such a mess, but
>>> Gallery 3 is java-free and won't have this problem, and it wouldn't hurt
>>> my feelings if G2 was not available in Fedora.  We're not putting any
>>> more effort into Gallery 2.
>>>
>>> And per Kevin's Comment #18:  My "100% sure" comment was guessing how
>>> much time you'd want to put in. you could certainly look at timestamps
>>> of releases to see what applets were in svn at that time, then look at
>>> when those applets where checked in, then get the code that was in trunk
>>> for them at that time, check out that code, look at the build scripts
>>> for that time, build them, etc, but that would take some time.  Still
>>> not sure how us not making it easy to build a few small components of G2
>>> from source, when it is possible if you work on it, is a "blatant
>>> disregard" of the GPL.
>>>
>>> Just trying to figure out what more you're asking for. Thanks!
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> Hi, Jon Ciesla, Fedora maintainer for the gallery2 package.  We've
>>>> run into a snag*, and I need some assistance.  The
>>>> gallery-2.3-full.zip contains several prebuilt .jar files, which in
>>>> turn contain prebuild .class files.  In fedora, we build from source,
>>>> and so I am faced with either dropping gallery from Fedora (which I
>>>> *really* don't want to do) or find a way to build from .java sources.
>>>>
>>>> Is it documented anywhere either in the G2 wiki or in the tarball how
>>>> to build the entire project from source?  I've done svn checkout of
>>>> trunk, and I'm not sure which subdirectories need to be present at
>>>> build or even how to do so. I'd like to not have to use the whole
>>>> 600MB+ trunk checkout if I can avoid it.
>>>>
>>>> I've found trunk/packaging/gallery2/build.php, which appears to do an
>>>> svn checkout among other things, but I can't find where the .class
>>>> files contained within the .jar files are build.
>>>>
>>>> I should also point out, in Gallery bug 2585568, that the GPL
>>>> stipulate that when binaries are shipped, the source must also be
>>>> made available.  I'm sure it is, and I just haven't found it, but
>>>> others might question the projects adherence to the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> *https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484566
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>