Hi everyone,
"community/jre" and "community/jdk" packages are out of date.
I have merged the two PKGBUILDs in one split PKGBUILD (enclosed to this email with the srcpkg) and updated the links and md5sums.
It works fine on my i686 Arch. Will test it on x64 tonight when at home.
Would someone want to test it further? Could it be useful to the official AL repo? If the merging into a single split package isn't worth it just say so and I could just update the current PKGBUILDs.
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) - move files from /opt/java to /usr/share/java6/java6-sun-{jre,jdk} or so to comply with the AL Java packaging guidelineshttp://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Java_Package_Guidelines#Example_Directory_Structure. That would also enable /usr/share/java$i to host all JVMs files - use a custom script to build package instead of "buggy" construct.sh
What do you think?
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.
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.
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.
On 07/25/2010 07:37 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîruibiru@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 :
- to add some more info about the package
- 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 !
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and jdk package when version 7 is released
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?
+1
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.
the description of jre/jdk are pretty damn straight an if you really search for java sun it would find jre/jdk
pacman -Ss java sun
On 25 July 2010 18:45, Ionuț Bîru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/25/2010 07:37 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîruibiru@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 :
- to add some more info about the package
- 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 !
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and jdk package when version 7 is released
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?
+1
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.
the description of jre/jdk are pretty damn straight an if you really search for java sun it would find jre/jdk
pacman -Ss java sun
-- Ionuț
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and
jdk package when version 7 is released I see your point: jdk beeing the "current" version and jdk5 or jdk7 alternatives like Peter said.
What about paths? Today jdk/jre install in /opt/java, openjdk6 installs in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk. Wouldn't it be cleaner if we installed jdk/jre files in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-{jdk,jre} or something?
On 25 July 2010 19:02, Guillaume ALAUX guillaume@alaux.net wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:45, Ionuț Bîru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/25/2010 07:37 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîruibiru@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 :
- to add some more info about the package
- 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 !
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and jdk package when version 7 is released
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?
+1
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.
the description of jre/jdk are pretty damn straight an if you really search for java sun it would find jre/jdk
pacman -Ss java sun
-- Ionuț
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and
jdk package when version 7 is released I see your point: jdk beeing the "current" version and jdk5 or jdk7 alternatives like Peter said.
What about paths? Today jdk/jre install in /opt/java, openjdk6 installs in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk. Wouldn't it be cleaner if we installed jdk/jre files in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-{jdk,jre} or something?
OK tested !
So! Basically, I made 2 versions of the package:
1) this onehttp://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_current is made of the PKGBUILDs of JRE and JDK from community merged and updated 2) this onehttp://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_custom is the same as 1) but I removed the construct.sh script and directly included it into the PKGBUILD so that we don't have to get through a lot of unnecessary lines of script for building. This doesn't bring a lot but looks cleaner to me so... may not be that relevant !
Names are unchanged, ie jdk and jre. Paths are unchanged ie /opt/java/{,jre}
Both have been tested for 32 and 64 arch and compile with openjdk6 and jre/jdk. If a dev wants to use/test for official use in Arch repo
Guillaume
On 07/29/2010 12:34 AM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 19:02, Guillaume ALAUXguillaume@alaux.net wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:45, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/25/2010 07:37 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîruibiru@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 :
- to add some more info about the package
- 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 !
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and jdk package when version 7 is released
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?
+1
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.
the description of jre/jdk are pretty damn straight an if you really search for java sun it would find jre/jdk
pacman -Ss java sun
-- Ionuț
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and
jdk package when version 7 is released I see your point: jdk beeing the "current" version and jdk5 or jdk7 alternatives like Peter said.
What about paths? Today jdk/jre install in /opt/java, openjdk6 installs in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk. Wouldn't it be cleaner if we installed jdk/jre files in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-{jdk,jre} or something?
OK tested !
So! Basically, I made 2 versions of the package:
is made of the PKGBUILDs of JRE and JDK from community merged and updated 2) this onehttp://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_custom is the same as 1) but I removed the construct.sh script and directly included it into the PKGBUILD so that we don't have to get through a lot of unnecessary lines of script for building. This doesn't bring a lot but looks cleaner to me so... may not be that relevant !
Names are unchanged, ie jdk and jre. Paths are unchanged ie /opt/java/{,jre}
Both have been tested for 32 and 64 arch and compile with openjdk6 and jre/jdk. If a dev wants to use/test for official use in Arch repo
Guillaume
thanks for this. i'll add it later today as Dan is kinda inactive
On 29 July 2010 16:42, Ionuț Bîru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/29/2010 12:34 AM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 19:02, Guillaume ALAUXguillaume@alaux.net wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:45, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/25/2010 07:37 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîruibiru@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 :
- to add some more info about the package
- 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 !
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and jdk package when version 7 is released
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?
+1
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.
the description of jre/jdk are pretty damn straight an if you really search for java sun it would find jre/jdk
pacman -Ss java sun
-- Ionuț
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and
jdk package when version 7 is released I see your point: jdk beeing the "current" version and jdk5 or jdk7 alternatives like Peter said.
What about paths? Today jdk/jre install in /opt/java, openjdk6 installs in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk. Wouldn't it be cleaner if we installed jdk/jre files in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-{jdk,jre} or something?
OK tested !
So! Basically, I made 2 versions of the package:
- this one<
http://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_current
is made of the PKGBUILDs of JRE and JDK from community merged and updated 2) this one< http://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_custom%3E
is the same as 1) but I removed the construct.sh script and directly included it into the PKGBUILD so that we don't have to get through a lot of unnecessary lines of script for building. This doesn't bring a lot but looks cleaner to me so... may not be that relevant !
Names are unchanged, ie jdk and jre. Paths are unchanged ie /opt/java/{,jre}
Both have been tested for 32 and 64 arch and compile with openjdk6 and jre/jdk. If a dev wants to use/test for official use in Arch repo
Guillaume
thanks for this. i'll add it later today as Dan is kinda inactive
-- Ionuț
I have pretty much the same request about Tomcat... should I wait for Dan to get back in business?
-- Guillaume
On 07/29/2010 05:57 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 29 July 2010 16:42, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/29/2010 12:34 AM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 19:02, Guillaume ALAUXguillaume@alaux.net wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:45, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/25/2010 07:37 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîruibiru@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 :
- to add some more info about the package
- 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 !
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and jdk package when version 7 is released
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?
+1
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.
the description of jre/jdk are pretty damn straight an if you really search for java sun it would find jre/jdk
pacman -Ss java sun
-- Ionuț
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and
jdk package when version 7 is released I see your point: jdk beeing the "current" version and jdk5 or jdk7 alternatives like Peter said.
What about paths? Today jdk/jre install in /opt/java, openjdk6 installs in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk. Wouldn't it be cleaner if we installed jdk/jre files in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-{jdk,jre} or something?
OK tested !
So! Basically, I made 2 versions of the package:
- this one<
http://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_current
is made of the PKGBUILDs of JRE and JDK from community merged and updated 2) this one< http://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_custom%3E
is the same as 1) but I removed the construct.sh script and directly included it into the PKGBUILD so that we don't have to get through a lot of unnecessary lines of script for building. This doesn't bring a lot but looks cleaner to me so... may not be that relevant !
Names are unchanged, ie jdk and jre. Paths are unchanged ie /opt/java/{,jre}
Both have been tested for 32 and 64 arch and compile with openjdk6 and jre/jdk. If a dev wants to use/test for official use in Arch repo
Guillaume
thanks for this. i'll add it later today as Dan is kinda inactive
-- Ionuț
I have pretty much the same request about Tomcat... should I wait for Dan to get back in business?
-- Guillaume
send me everything
On 29 July 2010 17:33, Ionuț Bîru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/29/2010 05:57 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 29 July 2010 16:42, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/29/2010 12:34 AM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 19:02, Guillaume ALAUXguillaume@alaux.net wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:45, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/25/2010 07:37 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîruibiru@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 ! > > > well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and jdk package when version 7 is released
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? > > > +1
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. > > > the description of jre/jdk are pretty damn straight an if you really search for java sun it would find jre/jdk
pacman -Ss java sun
-- Ionuț
well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6
and
jdk package when version 7 is released
I see your point: jdk beeing the "current" version and jdk5 or jdk7 alternatives like Peter said.
What about paths? Today jdk/jre install in /opt/java, openjdk6 installs in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk. Wouldn't it be cleaner if we installed jdk/jre files in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-{jdk,jre} or something?
OK tested !
So! Basically, I made 2 versions of the package:
- this one<
http://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_current
is made of the PKGBUILDs of JRE and JDK from community merged and updated 2) this one< http://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_custom
is the same as 1) but I removed the construct.sh script and directly included it into the PKGBUILD so that we don't have to get through a lot of unnecessary lines of script for building. This doesn't bring a lot but looks cleaner to me so... may not be that relevant !
Names are unchanged, ie jdk and jre. Paths are unchanged ie /opt/java/{,jre}
Both have been tested for 32 and 64 arch and compile with openjdk6 and jre/jdk. If a dev wants to use/test for official use in Arch repo
Guillaume
thanks for this. i'll add it later today as Dan is kinda inactive
-- Ionuț
I have pretty much the same request about Tomcat... should I wait for Dan to get back in business?
-- Guillaume
send me everything
-- Ionuț
Hi Ionuț,
I just need to test one last thing on x64 when at home on Sunday and will send it right away.
Thanks
On 07/31/2010 12:22 PM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote:
I have pretty much the same request about Tomcat... should I wait for Dan to get back in business?
send me everything
Hi Ionuț,
I just need to test one last thing on x64 when at home on Sunday and will send it right away.
Thanks
are you updating to the new stable series?
On 31 July 2010 11:51, Ionuț Bîru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/31/2010 12:22 PM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote:
I have pretty much the same request about Tomcat... should I wait for Dan
to get back in business?
send me everything
Hi Ionuț,
I just need to test one last thing on x64 when at home on Sunday and will send it right away.
Thanks
are you updating to the new stable series?
-- Ionuț
The 5.5.30 yes.
Well actually the update is hardly just a version change. You can already get it here and use ithttp://github.com/galaux/abs/blob/master/tomcat_current/PKGBUILD . I would also like to propose this "new" package "tomcat-admin"http://github.com/galaux/abs/tree/master/tomcat_current-adminthat provides the administration webapp. These have been tested on i686 and x64.
The last things I wanted to test are not related to these PKGBUILDs but to some changes I would like to propose. I could maybe post these later when tested.
-- Guillaume
On 07/31/2010 01:08 PM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote:
On 31 July 2010 11:51, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/31/2010 12:22 PM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote:
I have pretty much the same request about Tomcat... should I wait for Dan
to get back in business?
send me everything
Hi Ionuț,
I just need to test one last thing on x64 when at home on Sunday and will send it right away.
Thanks
are you updating to the new stable series?
-- Ionuț
The 5.5.30 yes.
Well actually the update is hardly just a version change. You can already get it here and use ithttp://github.com/galaux/abs/blob/master/tomcat_current/PKGBUILD .
done
I would also like to propose this "new" package "tomcat-admin"http://github.com/galaux/abs/tree/master/tomcat_current-adminthat provides the administration webapp. These have been tested on i686 and x64.
upload it in aur and if it gets enough votes maybe somebody will move it into community.
On 31 July 2010 12:23, Ionuț Bîru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/31/2010 01:08 PM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote:
On 31 July 2010 11:51, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/31/2010 12:22 PM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote:
I have pretty much the same request about Tomcat... should I wait for Dan
to
get back in business?
send me everything
Hi Ionuț,
I just need to test one last thing on x64 when at home on Sunday and will send it right away.
Thanks
are you updating to the new stable series?
-- Ionuț
The 5.5.30 yes.
Well actually the update is hardly just a version change. You can already get it here and use ithttp://github.com/galaux/abs/blob/master/tomcat_current/PKGBUILD .
done
I would also like to propose this "new" package
"tomcat-admin"< http://github.com/galaux/abs/tree/master/tomcat_current-admin%3Ethat
provides the administration webapp. These have been tested on i686 and x64.
upload it in aur and if it gets enough votes maybe somebody will move it into community.
-- Ionuț
upload it in aur and if it gets enough votes maybe somebody will move it
into community. Hum... I should have thought about that ! There it ishttp://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39306 .
Thanks.
On 31 July 2010 12:37, ALAUX, Guillaume guillaume@alaux.net wrote:
On 31 July 2010 12:23, Ionuț Bîru ibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/31/2010 01:08 PM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote:
On 31 July 2010 11:51, Ionuț Bîruibiru@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/31/2010 12:22 PM, ALAUX, Guillaume wrote:
I have pretty much the same request about Tomcat... should I wait for Dan
to
> get back in business? > > > send me everything
Hi Ionuț,
I just need to test one last thing on x64 when at home on Sunday and will send it right away.
Thanks
are you updating to the new stable series?
-- Ionuț
The 5.5.30 yes.
Well actually the update is hardly just a version change. You can already get it here and use ithttp://github.com/galaux/abs/blob/master/tomcat_current/PKGBUILD .
done
I would also like to propose this "new" package
"tomcat-admin"< http://github.com/galaux/abs/tree/master/tomcat_current-admin%3Ethat
provides the administration webapp. These have been tested on i686 and x64.
upload it in aur and if it gets enough votes maybe somebody will move it into community.
-- Ionuț
upload it in aur and if it gets enough votes maybe somebody will move it
into community. Hum... I should have thought about that ! There it ishttp://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39306 .
Thanks.
Hi Ionut, Hi everyone,
As said earlier, I have some changes to the tomcat package that I would like to share: * Fixed the "userdel tomcat" in tomcat.install that did not delete the user/group * Changed $arch from ('i686' 'x86_64') to ('any') (Java is supposed to be cross-platform right?) * Removed "--with-java=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk" from ./configure options - ./configure uses the $JAVA_HOME variable automatically so there shouldn't be any need for that option - $JAVA_HOME needs to be set to the path of JVM we build against but this is a Java pre-requisite anyway - This allows Tomcat to be built and run from virtually any JVM (tested with openjdk6 and jdk/jre from Sun/Oracle) * Core files moved from /opt/tomcat to /usr/share/tomcat (Java Packaging Guidelineshttp://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Java_Package_Guidelines#Arch_Java_Packaging ) * Log file moved from /opt/tomcat/logs/catalina.log to /var/log/tomcat/ * Conf files moved from /opt/tomcat/conf to /etc/tomcat * Webapps folders moved from /opt/tomcat/webapps to /srv/http/tomcat/webapps * Cleaned startup script /etc/rc.d/tomcat to use variables from /etc/conf.d/tomcat
I have tested these changes on i686 and x86_64 and with openjdk6 and jdk/jre: that installs, runs and web applications work to. Source package enclosed.
What do you think? Do some of these changes look useful to you?
-- Guillaume
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org