[aur-general] Submitting a new package (sunjdk)
hi, i made a PKGBUILD that comprises both sun's jdk+jre (nothing weird), however, i'm not sure if that's OK with aur, so i thought i'd ask first.. tell me if you need more details.. regards M Rawash
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:04:47 +0200 M Rawash <mrawash@gmail.com> wrote:
hi, i made a PKGBUILD that comprises both sun's jdk+jre (nothing weird), however, i'm not sure if that's OK with aur, so i thought i'd ask first..
tell me if you need more details..
regards M Rawash
Hi, Both of those packages (jdk and jre) are already in the community repo. In general you shouldn't upload packages to the AUR that already exist in core/extra/community (I think developmental versions and other variations are permitted as long as they're properly named). Could you explain why you've created such a package? If you're trying to achieve something specific then perhaps someone on the list can offer some suggestions of how to proceed. Regards, Xyne
On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 23:45 +0200, xyne wrote:
Hi,
Both of those packages (jdk and jre) are already in the community repo. In general you shouldn't upload packages to the AUR that already exist in core/extra/community (I think developmental versions and other variations are permitted as long as they're properly named).
Could you explain why you've created such a package? If you're trying to achieve something specific then perhaps someone on the list can offer some suggestions of how to proceed.
Regards, Xyne
jdk and jre in [community] are not updated as often as they should be imo (currently out-of-date, again), and the only other option is jre/jdk_beta, which are, well, beta! also, my package installs both jdk and jre (in the same manner as openjdk) so users don't download the same binary package twice (a la jre/jdk_beta) if they are unaware.. regards..
jre/jdk_beta should not be beta at all, last time I checked it it was the stable release. On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:04 AM, M Rawash <mrawash@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 23:45 +0200, xyne wrote:
Hi,
Both of those packages (jdk and jre) are already in the community repo.
In general you shouldn't upload packages to the AUR that already exist in core/extra/community (I think developmental versions and other variations are permitted as long as they're properly named).
Could you explain why you've created such a package? If you're trying to
achieve something specific then perhaps someone on the list can offer some suggestions of how to proceed.
Regards, Xyne
jdk and jre in [community] are not updated as often as they should be imo (currently out-of-date, again), and the only other option is jre/jdk_beta, which are, well, beta!
also, my package installs both jdk and jre (in the same manner as openjdk) so users don't download the same binary package twice (a la jre/jdk_beta) if they are unaware..
regards..
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 00:07 +0200, Ali H. Caliskan wrote:
jre/jdk_beta should not be beta at all, last time I checked it it was the stable release.
6u13 is the stable release, as mentioned here: http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/ReleaseNotes.html current version of jre/jdk_beta is 6u14: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22265 i could be wrong however. regards..
no, not at all, you seem to be right about jdk_beta 6u14 tough :) On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:15 AM, M Rawash <mrawash@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 00:07 +0200, Ali H. Caliskan wrote:
jre/jdk_beta should not be beta at all, last time I checked it it was the stable release.
6u13 is the stable release, as mentioned here: http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/ReleaseNotes.html
current version of jre/jdk_beta is 6u14: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22265
i could be wrong however.
regards..
M Rawash <mrawash@gmail.com> wrote:
jdk and jre in [community] are not updated as often as they should be imo (currently out-of-date, again), and the only other option is jre/jdk_beta, which are, well, beta!
also, my package installs both jdk and jre (in the same manner as openjdk) so users don't download the same binary package twice (a la jre/jdk_beta) if they are unaware..
regards..
I don't think it will be a problem if you give the package a distinct yet recognizable name (jdk-jre?) and include the proper provides and conflicts arrays in the PKGBUILD. If it does create some issue it can always be removed later. Have you tried contacting the jre/jdk packager directly about the update interval? You could also bring his attention to your combined package. I don't know what the current status of it is, but I've seen a few posts about including the ability to split packages in makepkg. That might eventually solve the redundant download issue, although if it is the same binary package you could just copy/symlink it into a new build directory for the second package.
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 00:58 +0200, Xyne wrote:
M Rawash <mrawash@gmail.com> wrote:
jdk and jre in [community] are not updated as often as they should be imo (currently out-of-date, again), and the only other option is jre/jdk_beta, which are, well, beta!
also, my package installs both jdk and jre (in the same manner as openjdk) so users don't download the same binary package twice (a la jre/jdk_beta) if they are unaware..
regards..
I don't think it will be a problem if you give the package a distinct yet recognizable name (jdk-jre?) and include the proper provides and conflicts arrays in the PKGBUILD. If it does create some issue it can always be removed later.
it'll be called sunjdk, because 'jre' is just an extract of the bigger binary package..
Have you tried contacting the jre/jdk packager directly about the update interval? You could also bring his attention to your combined package.
i stopped using jre/jdk from [community] sometime ago, due to the lack of updates and unresponsiveness of the maintainer (jre/jdk_beta were introduced for this very reason)
I don't know what the current status of it is, but I've seen a few posts about including the ability to split packages in makepkg. That might eventually solve the redundant download issue, although if it is the same binary package you could just copy/symlink it into a new build directory for the second package.
i know it's easy to use the same archive for a couple of different packages, but that's assuming the user knows it's the same archive (i certainly didn't) cheers..
i stopped using jre/jdk from [community] sometime ago, due to the lack of updates and unresponsiveness of the maintainer (jre/jdk_beta were introduced for this very reason)
The fact is that you cannot duplicate packages on AUR even if these are more updated than existents.. If you think that the maintainer of jre/jdk is not doing a good job, then write him an e-mail, offering help. Cheers -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 19:33 +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
i stopped using jre/jdk from [community] sometime ago, due to the lack of updates and unresponsiveness of the maintainer (jre/jdk_beta were introduced for this very reason)
The fact is that you cannot duplicate packages on AUR even if these are more updated than existents.. If you think that the maintainer of jre/jdk is not doing a good job, then write him an e-mail, offering help.
Cheers
it's *not* a duplicate, i just cited the lack of updates as one of the reasons i forked the package, you can review sunjdk here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25303 regards
it's *not* a duplicate, i just cited the lack of updates as one of the reasons i forked the package, you can review sunjdk here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25303
regards
IMO this is a duplicate effort, because this package provided the same as existent packages (jre,jdk) in repos, and btw you can't use the "Maintainer tag" since this isn't a binary package and you aren't a TU/Dev Thanks for your effort, anyway -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909
2009/4/5 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
and btw you can't use the "Maintainer tag" since this isn't a binary package and you aren't a TU/Dev Didn't we just have this discussion on another thread? That's the correct usage of the maintainer comment.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/5 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
and btw you can't use the "Maintainer tag" since this isn't a binary package and you aren't a TU/Dev Didn't we just have this discussion on another thread? That's the correct usage of the maintainer comment.
Yes and I have to say that I disagree with this, and I will be pointing my reasons on the other thread. Regards -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 19:57 +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
it's *not* a duplicate, i just cited the lack of updates as one of the reasons i forked the package, you can review sunjdk here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25303
regards
IMO this is a duplicate effort, because this package provided the same as existent packages (jre,jdk) in repos, and btw you can't use the "Maintainer tag" since this isn't a binary package and you aren't a TU/Dev
Thanks for your effort, anyway
frankly, i'm not really sure if the Maintainer/Contributor tags signify anything other than 'current maintainer'/'former contributor', i didn't even know there was a debate about it.. cheers
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:01:46AM +0200, M Rawash wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 19:57 +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
it's *not* a duplicate, i just cited the lack of updates as one of the reasons i forked the package, you can review sunjdk here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25303
regards
IMO this is a duplicate effort, because this package provided the same as existent packages (jre,jdk) in repos, and btw you can't use the "Maintainer tag" since this isn't a binary package and you aren't a TU/Dev
Thanks for your effort, anyway
frankly, i'm not really sure if the Maintainer/Contributor tags signify anything other than 'current maintainer'/'former contributor', i didn't even know there was a debate about it..
It's an issue for some people because namcap has some odd quirks about it.
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:01:46 +0200 M Rawash <mrawash@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 19:57 +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
it's *not* a duplicate, i just cited the lack of updates as one of the reasons i forked the package, you can review sunjdk here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25303
regards
IMO this is a duplicate effort, because this package provided the same as existent packages (jre,jdk) in repos, and btw you can't use the "Maintainer tag" since this isn't a binary package and you aren't a TU/Dev
Thanks for your effort, anyway
frankly, i'm not really sure if the Maintainer/Contributor tags signify anything other than 'current maintainer'/'former contributor', i didn't even know there was a debate about it..
cheers
Don't find it in the other thread anymore, so I point it out here: Another wiki page that needs updating: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards Philipp
2009/4/5 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
i stopped using jre/jdk from [community] sometime ago, due to the lack of updates and unresponsiveness of the maintainer (jre/jdk_beta were introduced for this very reason)
The fact is that you cannot duplicate packages on AUR even if these are more updated than existents.. If you think that the maintainer of jre/jdk is not doing a good job, then write him an e-mail, offering help.
Cheers
-- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909
While it technically is not a duplicate, it more or less is just two packages combined into one. I wouldn't add it and would instead coordinate with the jre/jdk maintainer so that those packages can be kept up to date. Alternately, apply to be a TU and keep the packages up to date yourself, if he's willing to orphan them for you.
On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 20:25 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:
2009/4/5 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
i stopped using jre/jdk from [community] sometime ago, due to the lack of updates and unresponsiveness of the maintainer (jre/jdk_beta were introduced for this very reason)
The fact is that you cannot duplicate packages on AUR even if these are more updated than existents.. If you think that the maintainer of jre/jdk is not doing a good job, then write him an e-mail, offering help.
Cheers
-- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909
While it technically is not a duplicate, it more or less is just two packages combined into one. I wouldn't add it and would instead coordinate with the jre/jdk maintainer so that those packages can be kept up to date. Alternately, apply to be a TU and keep the packages up to date yourself, if he's willing to orphan them for you.
not really, unless you regard kde packages in [extra] as duplicates of those in [kde-mod]. jre and jdk is just sun's jdk split into two packages for the sole purpose of having smaller binary packages, but serve no purpose at all if you are building from a pkgbuild. however, if you still see it as problematic, you can well remove it, i'll continue to use it personally anyway.. cheers
not really, unless you regard kde packages in [extra] as duplicates of those in [kde-mod]. jre and jdk is just sun's jdk split into two packages for the sole purpose of having smaller binary packages, but serve no purpose at all if you are building from a pkgbuild.
First of all kde-mod is a good project, but their binaries are not official, and they can duplicate what they want on their repos.
however, if you still see it as problematic, you can well remove it, i'll continue to use it personally anyway..
I can't remove it since I resigned on my TU position, but if I were tu I'd like to discuss about removal (like I am doing) before do it. And if you will be continue using your package then you got the idea about the "Arch's way", and you realized that ABS rocks, and I am glad you got it. Cheers -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 20:25 +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
not really, unless you regard kde packages in [extra] as duplicates of those in [kde-mod]. jre and jdk is just sun's jdk split into two packages for the sole purpose of having smaller binary packages, but serve no purpose at all if you are building from a pkgbuild.
First of all kde-mod is a good project, but their binaries are not official, and they can duplicate what they want on their repos.
not exactly what i meant, sunjdk doesn't split the official package, in the same way kde in [extra] doesn't. if it's up to me jre and jdk wouldn't exist, but to those who only need java support for their browser, they couldn't care less about jdk, so it's better for those to have a smaller package to download and install, thus the kde-mod analogy. if you compared my package to jre in [community], you'll notice that i haven't added any extra sources, i just decided to install the rest of the package. cheers.
IMHO, maintain this package on AUR is waste of time. Sorry. --- Lucas Saliés Brum http://sistematico.org 2009/4/5 M Rawash <mrawash@gmail.com>
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 20:25 +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
not really, unless you regard kde packages in [extra] as duplicates of those in [kde-mod]. jre and jdk is just sun's jdk split into two packages for the sole purpose of having smaller binary packages, but serve no purpose at all if you are building from a pkgbuild.
First of all kde-mod is a good project, but their binaries are not official, and they can duplicate what they want on their repos.
not exactly what i meant, sunjdk doesn't split the official package, in the same way kde in [extra] doesn't. if it's up to me jre and jdk wouldn't exist, but to those who only need java support for their browser, they couldn't care less about jdk, so it's better for those to have a smaller package to download and install, thus the kde-mod analogy.
if you compared my package to jre in [community], you'll notice that i haven't added any extra sources, i just decided to install the rest of the package.
cheers.
Lucas Salies Brum <lucas@archlinux.com.br> wrote:
IMHO, maintain this package on AUR is waste of time.
Sorry. --- Lucas Saliés Brum
I don't understand this reasoning (which several people have expressed). If he thinks it's worth maintaining and its his time, what difference does it make to anyone else? No one else has to maintain it and the only thing that could happen is that someone who wants that package will find it and use it. Xyne
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Lucas Salies Brum <lucas@archlinux.com.br> wrote:
IMHO, maintain this package on AUR is waste of time.
Sorry. --- Lucas Saliés Brum
I don't understand this reasoning (which several people have expressed). If he thinks it's worth maintaining and its his time, what difference does it make to anyone else? No one else has to maintain it and the only thing that could happen is that someone who wants that package will find it and use it.
Xyne
Duplicate PKGBUILD will fill the AUR of many garbabe that will be orphan later.. Frankly, the majority of the orphan and out-of-date PKGBUILD on AUR are versions of things duplicated :/ I think this should be deleted and no matter what, and it's the opinion of the majority so, why is there yet? -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 20:49, M Rawash <mrawash@gmail.com> wrote:
not really, unless you regard kde packages in [extra] as duplicates of those in [kde-mod]. jre and jdk is just sun's jdk split into two packages for the sole purpose of having smaller binary packages, but serve no purpose at all if you are building from a pkgbuild.
however, if you still see it as problematic, you can well remove it, i'll continue to use it personally anyway..
cheers
The analogy doesn't carry very well here.. The kdemod repos 1) are not officially supported or endorsed, and 2) contain patches that change functionality. That being said, I wouldn't go so far as to entirely delete the package, I just think it's a useless duplication of effort
That being said, I wouldn't go so far as to entirely delete the package, I just think it's a useless duplication of effort
That is my point, but according to this: [1] Quote: "Check [core], [extra], and [community] for the package. If it is inside any of those repositories in ANY form, DO NOT submit the package (if the current package is broken or is lacking an included feature then please file a bug report in FlySpray). " This should be deleted ... but thanks anyway for the effort as I said before. :) [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_User_Guidelines#Submitting_Packages_... -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909
Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
The analogy doesn't carry very well here.. The kdemod repos 1) are not officially supported or endorsed, and 2) contain patches that change functionality.
That being said, I wouldn't go so far as to entirely delete the package, I just think it's a useless duplication of effort
Considering that the combo-package does simplify both building and installation for those users who want both the development and the runtime environment and that it's already been created, it seems to be only beneficial to have it in the AUR. Perhaps it could be taken over by the jre/jkd maintainer (or vice versa) later on to consolidate the effort. Sorry if I'm missing something.
participants (9)
-
Ali H. Caliskan
-
Angel Velásquez
-
Daenyth Blank
-
hollunder＠gmx.at
-
Loui Chang
-
Lucas Salies Brum
-
M Rawash
-
Xyne
-
xyne