[aur-general] Java name guideliness

[Pablo Lezaeta Reyes]

>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 at 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 at dray.be
> M: 0433348284
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Det <nimetonmaili at 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*