Part of the issue here however is that now there are both jre7 and
jre7-oracle and so on duplicate packages in the AUR. If someone says 'oh, i
need oracle jdk, I can search on the AUR for that.' Well now they have to
go and read all of the comments and look around on the wiki/mailing
lists/forums to figure out which one they actually want. And it's not even
a dispute between different maintainers, 'joschi' is the maintainer for
both packages and are seemingly totally different; different groups,
different upstream urls, different dependencies, different
provides/conflicts. It also appears that jre8-oracle was merged in to jre
package recently, so there is another discrepancy in the naming there.
I'm not fussed one way or another on the naming, but by having both, I've
really got to agree with Pablo; it's far from KISS.
Regards,
Justin Dray
E: justin@dray.be
M: 0433348284
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Det
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes
wrote:
Since the new java-common come to the repo Is now possible have multiple java, but this bring and open another issue, java naming scheme the guy in jre/jdk[1] and jre-devel and jdk-devel refuse to follow a convention non generic name and the other maintaining jre7/jdk7 [2] and jre7-oracle/jdk7-oracle that do the same [3] refuse to accept or merge jre7-oracle into jre7 for the same reason even if the jre-oracle was merged into jre, this is a chaos. Many packages doing the same in different verion having different name conventions and ALL arguin bein correct.
There is need to a conventional standar name scheme or this will be worst, instead to be kiss this is sick. There is a name scheme or name convention to follow?
First of all, I really *really* urge you to stop using phrases like "refusal" or "this is sick". If that really was the case, it would only split all parties further. It's not "refusal" to talk something through before doing it.
In fact, _nowhere_ do I see anybody refusing to do _anything_. The talk in jdk7[1] is discussion on the appropriate name, and what I told everybody both in there and jdk[2] was my view on things and why I did what I had done (use jdk/java-8-jdk as the name, rather than jdk8-oracle/java-8-oracle). You realise how unbelievably easy it is for me to revert to the "jdk8-oracle" approach, if that winds up being the consensus? Or if I somehow wouldn't, then how easy would it be to kick me off from maintaining that thing?
Enough of that already. Why I chose the "java-8-jdk" naming comes from the fact that "java-8-openjdk" sounds like we're trying to do "java-<major version>-<project name>". The project name of JDK is not "Oracle JDK", and that's why I chose it. Now, OpenJDK apparently still calls these projects by their "base name"[3], but _I_ would still prefer (read: I don't "refuse"; I prefer) having packages called "jdk8-openjdk" and "jdk" that install in "/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk/" and "/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jdk/", respectively.
This also means we can currently do:
$ man java-openjdk8 $ man java-jdk8
To access the man pages. I really didn't like the following at all:
$ man java-openjdk8 $ man java8-oracle
[1] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk7/ [2] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk/ [3] = http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/
Det