Re: Build question

> 3.0 Milestone added!  Must have gotten removed or renamed at some point.
>
> Jon Ciesla wrote:
>  
>> I understand your frustration.  I'm one of the more uptight GNUites I
>> know, so I see it all the time. ;)
>>
>> Hopefully one of the java folk will chime in.  In the meantime:
>>
>> 1. I used to do that as well, but find it easier to do mass deployments
>> with packages.  To each their own, and I like that distros that include
>> packages give admins the option.
>>
>> 2. I can live with that, under the circumstances.  I'll drop the remote,
>> slideshowapplet, and uploadapplet module subpackages, and all the .jar
>> files.  That will fix our legal issue.
>>
>> 3. See #2.
>>
>> Re: the roadmap, am I missing something, or is there no 3.0 milestone?
>> At any rate, it looks like late May/early June might be a reasonable
>> estimate for 3.0, no?
>>
>> When G3 is out, I'll package it to replace G2.
>>
>> Thanks for the information, and the assistance.
>>
>> Chris Kelly wrote:
>>    
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>            
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>