On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 07/25/2010 07:14 PM, Peter Lewis wrote:
Hi,
On Sunday 25 Jul 2010 at 16:50 Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
I also have some suggestions for these packages: - rename them from {jre,jdk} to {java6-sun-jre,java6-sun-jdk} or so would enable us to use different versions of SUN's JVM (Java5, 6 and 7)
Well the open jdk package is called "openjdk6". It would be nice if all the similar packages had similar names, to make it obvious that they were alternatives.
So if you want to rename them, how about either calling them sunjdk6 and sunjre6 or else renaming the open ones too to fit into the same scheme, e.g. java6-open-jdk? Although this has the down side that it no longer contains the phrase "openjdk" which is probably what some/most people search for.
Just a thought.
Pete.
i always hatted the debian naming scheme for java so -1 from me. but i'm not against to use upstream name.
-- Ionuț
Well there are several reasons in this renaming proposal : 1) to add some more info about the package 2) to make the difference between versions of Java. ie if we include the "6" in names we could have (in a shorter scheme) jdk6 and jre6, jdk5 and jre5, jdk7 and jre7. Because nowadays, upgrading jre from 6 to 7 would un-install jre v6. As you all know these different versions of JVM (5 and 6 and tomorrow 7) are both used a lot !
i always hatted the debian naming scheme for java so -1 from me. but i'm not against to use upstream name What about splitting the PKGBUILD?
So if you want to rename them, how about either calling them sunjdk6 and sunjre6 or else renaming the open ones too to fit into the same scheme, e.g. java6-open-jdk I do agree.