sci-geosciences/josm-bin: -bin version of the application

[henning-schild]

Building from source is very complicated, we are stuck with that for way
too long. Go -bin and be done with it.

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/628944
Signed-off-by: Henning Schild henning@hennsch.de

[gentoo-bot]

Pull Request assignment

Submitter: @henning-schild
Areas affected: ebuilds
Packages affected: sci-geosciences/josm-bin

sci-geosciences/josm-bin: @gentoo/proxy-maint (new package)

Linked bugs

Bugs linked: 628944

New packages

This Pull Request appears to be introducing new packages only. Due to limited manpower, adding new packages is considered low priority. This does not mean that your Pull Request will not receive any attention, however, it might take quite some time for it to be reviewed. In the meantime, your new ebuild might find a home in the GURU project repository: the ebuild repository maintained collaboratively by Gentoo users. GURU offers your ebuild a place to be reviewed and improved by other Gentoo users, while making it easy for Gentoo users to install it and enjoy the software it adds.

---

In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append [please reassign] to the pull request title.

Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2021-01-10 16:55 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 1a882a2
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/cece76750c/output.html

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2021-01-12 14:05 UTC
Newest commit scanned: ca7aef0
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/81496fe7a8/output.html

[henning-schild]

@mgorny i would like to get an answer on the general -bin approach

#10475 (comment)

Seems people are interested since we have reviews coming in

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2021-01-20 21:40 UTC
Newest commit scanned: d613af0
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/1f72c37434/output.html

[AndrewAmmerlaan]

@mgorny i would like to get an answer on the general -bin approach

#10475 (comment)

Seems people are interested since we have reviews coming in

+1 for the -bin approach. Upstream is using Ivy in the build.xml file which in theory can be patched/sed'ed out. However, in practice doing so will just cause a lot of pain, suffering and frustration (flashbacks to dev-java/lucene are still haunting me).

If @gentoo/proxy-maint agrees and @henning-schild is still interested in proxying this I would like to merge this after I've done a proper review and test.

@henning-schild you can also add @gentoo/sci-geosciences as co-maintainer if you want, since that is the maintainer for the non-bin version. And if you feel like taking on a challenge you can try getting a non-bin version to work, here's an example of how Ivy can be patched out, though it will likely require adjusting and a lot of attempts: https://github.com/gentoo/sci/blob/master/dev-java/lucene/lucene-8.4.0.ebuild (and if not, then we'll just use the -bin version, which is probably the saner long-term option anyway)

[henning-schild]

@AndrewAmmerlaan i decided to stick with -bin for now and addressed your comments, plus rebased and updated to the most recent version.

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2021-08-01 14:24 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 5077cb1
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/1ed9593240/output.html

[ionenwks]

Just a quick look.

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2021-08-03 07:39 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 8a7c0f8
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/9d295c7087/output.html

[henning-schild]

@ionenwks thanks for all those findings, updated the PR accordingly

[AndrewAmmerlaan]

Very nice, Thank You for working on this!

Can we close #10475 and #9771 since those seem obsolete now?

[henning-schild]

Can we close #10475 and #9771 since those seem obsolete now?

Well the question is now if we remove the non-bin and the problems it might have. I guess the logical consequence would be to to retire "josm" and transistion the users to "josm-bin"

[AndrewAmmerlaan]

I guess the logical consequence would be to to retire "josm" and transistion the users to "josm-bin"

Agreed, but lets wait a couple of weeks before we last-rite the non-bin version to see if any issues with the -bin version surface.

[henning-schild]

I guess the logical consequence would be to to retire "josm" and transistion the users to "josm-bin"

Agreed, but lets wait a couple of weeks before we last-rite the non-bin version to see if any issues with the -bin version surface.

I was thinking about a slow and non-invasive transition anyways. First step could be to notifiy "josm" users that "josm-bin" is around, kindly asking them to give it a try.

Implementation could be a -rX bump on "josm" to do nothing but add some "einfo", or an "eselect news" posting. I think the latter would be better, but not sure this can be done to address only "josm"-users.

Anyhow, i will go and point out "josm-bin exists" in all open bugs on https://bugs.gentoo.org