[aur-general] Java name guideliness
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? [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk7/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk7-oracle/ There is also a jdk5-compat. Also mergins as ben posponed until name convention come. -- *Pablo Lezaeta*
Agreed, someone complained on one of my java packages that it was using the incorrect path for oracle java from the aur, and upon inspection I noticed these multiple packages providing the same thing, none of which work as they should be. I assumed they would have fixed it since that was only a short time after the new java common stuff, but it appears that they may need some assistance with that task. Regards, Justin Dray E: justin@dray.be M: 0433348284 On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes <prflr88@gmail.com> 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?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk7/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk7-oracle/ There is also a jdk5-compat. Also mergins as ben posponed until name convention come.
-- *Pablo Lezaeta*
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes <prflr88 at gmail.com> 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
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 <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes <prflr88 at gmail.com
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
First of all, I really *really* urge you to stop using phrases like "refusal" 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. In fact, _nowhere_ do I see anybody refusing to do _anything_. One not want use the other guidelines, so using the bare meaning of refusal that mean not accdept the other. Maybe the way I use the word not is the correct, you knoe false friends in english. 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) having all the packages with different names, that is simply confusing the user who want install a simple jdk packages (me, I ended more confusin with this).
I thing that is bvous that all are java. so why not something like <provider><jre/jdk>-<version>: openjdk-9 or oraclejdk-7. Note; Using Gmail Note 2: Sorry again if I use a false friend, misswitting, misuse of words, incorrect use of expesions incorrec sytaxis or ambiguous language and my words ended hurting someone, sorry. 2014-09-10 0:08 GMT-03:00 Justin Dray <justin@dray.be>:
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 <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes <prflr88 at gmail.com
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
-- *Pablo Lezaeta*
On 10/09/14 00:20, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
First of all, I really *really* urge you to stop using phrases like "refusal" 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. In fact, _nowhere_ do I see anybody refusing to do _anything_. One not want use the other guidelines, so using the bare meaning of refusal that mean not accdept the other. Maybe the way I use the word not is the correct, you knoe false friends in english. 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) having all the packages with different names, that is simply confusing the user who want install a simple jdk packages (me, I ended more confusin with this).
I certainly understood perfectly well the meaning and the spirit of your words, and the native speakers in this thread have too. As maintainer of a fairly visible Java-based package, vuze, I have always wondered about the chaotic situation of java runtimes in the AUR both in the packaging and the naming. Thus, I have actively refused to support anything that doesn't include a "provides=java-runtime", punting the whole problem to the packaging upstreams. The creation of java-common has eased my work, although it took me off guard at first and I did a couple of silly packaging mistakes "working around" the new features that one of my users kindly pointed out to me. I accepted his corrections humbly and ashamed for not having understood the first time. 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.
2014-09-09 23:22 GMT-03:00 Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com>:
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.
+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. Rafael Ferreira
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
For what it's worth, I support this naming scheme. Kind regards, Marcel
2014-09-23 13:13 GMT-03:00 Marcel Korpel <marcel.lists@gmail.com>:
Enough of that already. Why I chose the "java-8-jdk" naming comes from
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
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote: the 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.
For what it's worth, I support this naming scheme.
Kind regards, Marcel
I preffer ad a hyphen after the version as all the other arch packages do when is needed. so my vote is for : * java-openjdk-8 * java-jdk-8 -- *Pablo Lezaeta*
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:22:52PM -0300, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
2014-09-23 13:13 GMT-03:00 Marcel Korpel <marcel.lists@gmail.com>:
Enough of that already. Why I chose the "java-8-jdk" naming comes from
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
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote: the 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.
For what it's worth, I support this naming scheme.
Kind regards, Marcel
I preffer ad a hyphen after the version as all the other arch packages do when is needed. so my vote is for : * java-openjdk-8 * java-jdk-8
-- *Pablo Lezaeta*
All the other arch packages? Really? $ pacman -Ssq | grep -Ec '[^-][0-9]+$' 322 $ pacman -Ssq | grep -Ec -- '-[0-9]+$' 5
2014-09-23 17:39 GMT-03:00 Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com>:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:22:52PM -0300, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
2014-09-23 13:13 GMT-03:00 Marcel Korpel <marcel.lists@gmail.com>:
Enough of that already. Why I chose the "java-8-jdk" naming comes from
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
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote: the 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.
For what it's worth, I support this naming scheme.
Kind regards, Marcel
I preffer ad a hyphen after the version as all the other arch packages do when is needed. so my vote is for : * java-openjdk-8 * java-jdk-8
-- *Pablo Lezaeta*
All the other arch packages? Really?
$ pacman -Ssq | grep -Ec '[^-][0-9]+$' 322
$ pacman -Ssq | grep -Ec -- '-[0-9]+$' 5
Ironically this show how bad I'm greep-ing, Well if is for follow the main rule go for the *java-openjdk8 and *java-jdk8 I will be happywhit this one specifically -- *Pablo Lezaeta*
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
All the other arch packages? Really?
$ pacman -Ssq | grep -Ec '[^-][0-9]+$' 322
This is not a *completely* fair search, as this resultset also includes bin86, libx264, xf86-video-i740 and v8, where the number parts are not indicating version numbers. ;-) Kind regards, Marcel
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 01:29:44AM +0200, Marcel Korpel wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
All the other arch packages? Really?
$ pacman -Ssq | grep -Ec '[^-][0-9]+$' 322
This is not a *completely* fair search, as this resultset also includes bin86, libx264, xf86-video-i740 and v8, where the number parts are not indicating version numbers. ;-)
Kind regards, Marcel
Unfortunately, this also holds true of the other search. spring-1944 isn't version 1944, but an open source RTS called "Spring: 1944". Similarly, 'gl-177' is a flight simulator called "GL-177". This inflates the number of packages by 60%. Unfair! d
participants (7)
-
"P. A. López-Valencia"
-
Dave Reisner
-
Det
-
Justin Dray
-
Marcel Korpel
-
Pablo Lezaeta Reyes
-
Rafael Ferreira