Re: [aur-general] Java name guideliness
More input. On 09/09/14 23:08, Justin Dray wrote:
Part of the issue here however is that now there are both jre7 and jre7-oracle and so on duplicate packages in the AUR.
Yes, but why are you bringing that up as an "issue", as we are trying to decide exactly which one to keep before just removing the other. I think you know neither I nor the maintainers were never for leaving both - we just don't, at this point, know which one. I mean, isn't that like saying: A: We need to figure out the right type of fuel for this car. B: Yes, but the issue is the car doesn't move. A: Well. Yeah.. On 10/09/14 01:20, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
Refusal is what happend when two or more not agree in something I never mention who is refusing who cause both side from the vewpoint of the other is refusing the other side of view.
Who is refusing whom?
One not want use the other guidelines, so using the bare meaning of refusal that mean not accdept the other.
But you see you hit the problem right there. We don't _have_ a guideline for the naming. That's what the debate is about: we are trying to establish one.
or "this is sick". Maybe you are overreacting (or I not expresed it corretly), I mean that is no sane (synonimous of ill synonimos of sick)
Ok. Just use "makes no sense".
I thing that is bvous that all are java. so why not something like <provider><jre/jdk>-<version>: openjdk-9 or oraclejdk-7.
The names in the official repos are "jre/jdk8-openjdk", so that's why the previous suggestion was "jre/jdk8-oracle". However, I believe it should be pretty obvious which one you're dealing with, if a package is named just "jre" or "jdk" (isn't that the ultimate "KISS"?). The "java-" prefix is used for "archlinux-java" (extra/java-common), and already decided upstream. That I would refuse to divert from. On 10/09/14 08:38, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:
My opinion is that the AUR should follow the example set by the Arch Linux developers in the extra repository and everything else must go, starting with the jdk/jre pair as clarity trumps over brevity in naming
Explained above. As far as I know in all the years I maintained these things, nobody ever confused them with OpenJDK, because that's always mentioned. On 10/09/14 07:43, Rafael Ferreira wrote:
+1 for 'java-8-jdk' and 'java-8-jre' is a good name. Just would be nice to have the word "Oracle" in the description, so a "yaourt -Ss oracle" could easily track your package.
I agree. Added. Again, to summarize the Java "guidelines": Package name: <project name><version>-<"vendor"> (e.g. jdk8-openjdk, jre7-openjdk) "archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<"vendor">(/jre) (e.g. java-8-openjdk, java-7-openjdk/jre) And what I support for AUR (same as what we had before): Package name: <project name>(<version>) (e.g. jdk, jre7) "archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<project name>(/jre) (e.g. java-8-jdk, java-7-jre/jre) (just java-7-jre unsupported by "archlinux-java") Det
If look to the pther packages (not java) the fewers who need a version they apend the versión at the endm so for consistency whit the all others packages I think is better keep the version at the end: <vendor>-<jre/jdk>-<version>: oracle/openjdk-jre-7/8 2014-09-11 13:41 GMT-03:00 Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com>:
More input.
On 09/09/14 23:08, Justin Dray wrote:
Part of the issue here however is that now there are both jre7 and jre7-oracle and so on duplicate packages in the AUR.
Yes, but why are you bringing that up as an "issue", as we are trying to decide exactly which one to keep before just removing the other. I think you know neither I nor the maintainers were never for leaving both - we just don't, at this point, know which one.
I mean, isn't that like saying:
A: We need to figure out the right type of fuel for this car. B: Yes, but the issue is the car doesn't move. A: Well. Yeah..
On 10/09/14 01:20, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
Refusal is what happend when two or more not agree in something I never mention who is refusing who cause both side from the vewpoint of the other is refusing the other side of view.
Who is refusing whom?
One not want use the other guidelines, so using the bare meaning of refusal that mean not accdept the other.
But you see you hit the problem right there. We don't _have_ a guideline for the naming. That's what the debate is about: we are trying to establish one.
or "this is sick". Maybe you are overreacting (or I not expresed it corretly), I mean that is no sane (synonimous of ill synonimos of sick)
Ok. Just use "makes no sense".
I thing that is bvous that all are java. so why not something like <provider><jre/jdk>-<version>: openjdk-9 or oraclejdk-7.
The names in the official repos are "jre/jdk8-openjdk", so that's why the previous suggestion was "jre/jdk8-oracle". However, I believe it should be pretty obvious which one you're dealing with, if a package is named just "jre" or "jdk" (isn't that the ultimate "KISS"?).
The "java-" prefix is used for "archlinux-java" (extra/java-common), and already decided upstream. That I would refuse to divert from.
On 10/09/14 08:38, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:
My opinion is that the AUR should follow the example set by the Arch Linux developers in the extra repository and everything else must go, starting with the jdk/jre pair as clarity trumps over brevity in naming
Explained above. As far as I know in all the years I maintained these things, nobody ever confused them with OpenJDK, because that's always mentioned.
On 10/09/14 07:43, Rafael Ferreira wrote:
+1 for 'java-8-jdk' and 'java-8-jre' is a good name. Just would be nice to have the word "Oracle" in the description, so a "yaourt -Ss oracle" could easily track your package.
I agree. Added.
Again, to summarize the Java "guidelines":
Package name: <project name><version>-<"vendor"> (e.g. jdk8-openjdk, jre7-openjdk)
"archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<"vendor">(/jre) (e.g. java-8-openjdk, java-7-openjdk/jre)
And what I support for AUR (same as what we had before):
Package name: <project name>(<version>) (e.g. jdk, jre7)
"archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<project name>(/jre) (e.g. java-8-jdk, java-7-jre/jre) (just java-7-jre unsupported by "archlinux-java")
Det
-- *Pablo Lezaeta*
The fact that one naming convention or the other being chosen is still not the issue, it's the fact that in the interim there are *both* packages in there. There should only be duplicates of the same package for as long as it takes for a merge request to be processed. This is clearly not the case, and I think one of the more annoying points that has been brought up in this thread. In fact it probably never would have come up on this mailing list if there weren't 2 subtly divergent jdk/jre packages in the aur simultaneously. Regards, Justin Dray E: justin@dray.be M: 0433348284 On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes <prflr88@gmail.com> wrote:
If look to the pther packages (not java) the fewers who need a version they apend the versión at the endm so for consistency whit the all others packages I think is better keep the version at the end: <vendor>-<jre/jdk>-<version>: oracle/openjdk-jre-7/8
2014-09-11 13:41 GMT-03:00 Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com>:
More input.
On 09/09/14 23:08, Justin Dray wrote:
Part of the issue here however is that now there are both jre7 and jre7-oracle and so on duplicate packages in the AUR.
Yes, but why are you bringing that up as an "issue", as we are trying to decide exactly which one to keep before just removing the other. I think you know neither I nor the maintainers were never for leaving both - we just don't, at this point, know which one.
I mean, isn't that like saying:
A: We need to figure out the right type of fuel for this car. B: Yes, but the issue is the car doesn't move. A: Well. Yeah..
On 10/09/14 01:20, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
Refusal is what happend when two or more not agree in something I never mention who is refusing who cause both side from the vewpoint of the other is refusing the other side of view.
Who is refusing whom?
One not want use the other guidelines, so using the bare meaning of refusal that mean not accdept the other.
But you see you hit the problem right there. We don't _have_ a guideline for the naming. That's what the debate is about: we are trying to establish one.
or "this is sick". Maybe you are overreacting (or I not expresed it corretly), I mean that is no sane (synonimous of ill synonimos of sick)
Ok. Just use "makes no sense".
I thing that is bvous that all are java. so why not something like <provider><jre/jdk>-<version>: openjdk-9 or oraclejdk-7.
The names in the official repos are "jre/jdk8-openjdk", so that's why the previous suggestion was "jre/jdk8-oracle". However, I believe it should be pretty obvious which one you're dealing with, if a package is named just "jre" or "jdk" (isn't that the ultimate "KISS"?).
The "java-" prefix is used for "archlinux-java" (extra/java-common), and already decided upstream. That I would refuse to divert from.
On 10/09/14 08:38, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:
My opinion is that the AUR should follow the example set by the Arch Linux developers in the extra repository and everything else must go, starting with the jdk/jre pair as clarity trumps over brevity in naming
Explained above. As far as I know in all the years I maintained these things, nobody ever confused them with OpenJDK, because that's always mentioned.
On 10/09/14 07:43, Rafael Ferreira wrote:
+1 for 'java-8-jdk' and 'java-8-jre' is a good name. Just would be nice to have the word "Oracle" in the description, so a "yaourt -Ss oracle" could easily track your package.
I agree. Added.
Again, to summarize the Java "guidelines":
Package name: <project name><version>-<"vendor"> (e.g. jdk8-openjdk, jre7-openjdk)
"archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<"vendor">(/jre) (e.g. java-8-openjdk, java-7-openjdk/jre)
And what I support for AUR (same as what we had before):
Package name: <project name>(<version>) (e.g. jdk, jre7)
"archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<project name>(/jre) (e.g. java-8-jdk, java-7-jre/jre) (just java-7-jre unsupported by "archlinux-java")
Det
-- *Pablo Lezaeta*
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 08:13:11AM +1000, Justin Dray wrote:
...
Perhaps you could read over this before you post again: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2014-August/029294.html Cheers, d
participants (4)
-
Dave Reisner
-
Det
-
Justin Dray
-
Pablo Lezaeta Reyes