Hello, thank you very much for your input. I used the packaging draft guidelines you pointed out, as I'm thinking of asking FPC for a review of the packaging drafts for javascript and web applications. I filed the review here, it is a simple rpm containing 6 Java scripts: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975 This is the only prerequisite I miss for the main Guacamole Web Application! Will you take it for review? Thanks, --Simone On 6 June 2012 02:18, Jon VanAlten <jvanalte@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Simone, > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Simone Caronni" <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 4:46:45 AM >> Subject: Guacamole Java Web application >> >> Hello, >> >> sorry for double posting to devel and java-devel but the last seems >> not so >> crowded. >> >> On 24 May 2012 12:04, Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > following the mail in fedora-devel, I'm posting here some progress >> > in >> > packaging the Guacamole stack for Fedora. I hope to get some advice >> > from Fedora Java gurus... >> > >> >> guacamole-common and guacamole-common-ext are now into rawhide and >> I've >> been struggling a couple of days for the next parts. >> I need some help with the guacamole-common-js [1][2]; the last step >> before >> packaging the web application itself [3]. >> >> The build itself is normally generated with the command "maven >> package"; so >> replacing it with "mvn-rpmbuild package" generates the following >> file. >> >> How's the supposed guideline for packaging it? Where should I put the >> zip >> file and how should the spec file be structured? >> All the other java classes for Guacamole are into jars in >> /usr/share/java/guacamole/. >> >> I can't find any useful information for it in the Java packaging >> pages [4]. >> I tried to look at at least 20 java packages in fedora and could not >> find >> one that was not packaging a jar file. > > Warning: I know nothing about packaging a web app, so please take > all that I say with several grains of salt! ;) > > It seems that in the past there was some effort at standards for > packaging javascript libraries[1]. But even these do not seem to > cover your case, or at least not without you needing to patch the > upstream build extensively, and the guidelines effort seems to have > gone stale. > > Maybe some others with more Guru-like qualities would have a different > opinion, but here is what I would do I think: > > 1. Patch the build to produce a .jar instead of .zip (with the same > contents; a .jar is not much more than .zip with different extension). > > 2. Install this .jar and related .pom as you normally would. > > 3. Patch the webapp itself if needed to find the .jar instead of .zip > > This is assuming that the webapp needs to use maven to find this > dependency. Maybe there is some better way. Like put the zip in > %{_datadir}/%{name} and configure the webapp build to find it there? > Or, maybe the %add_maven_depmap macro can somehow be coaxed into > mapping to the .zip in %{_datadir} and no renaming necessary? Just > trying to throw out some ideas. > > Good luck, hope this helps, or at least does not harm!! > > jon > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaScript_libraries_packaging_guideline_draft > > -- > java-devel mailing list > java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
