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>-<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 :

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 wrote:

...

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

-- *Pablo Lezaeta*

2014-09-09 23:22 GMT-03:00 Det :

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

2014-09-23 13:13 GMT-03:00 Marcel Korpel :

...

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 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*

2014-09-23 17:39 GMT-03:00 Dave Reisner :

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:22:52PM -0300, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:

...

2014-09-23 13:13 GMT-03:00 Marcel Korpel :

...

...

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 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 Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 01:29:44AM +0200, Marcel Korpel wrote:

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Dave Reisner 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