[aur-general] Java name guideliness
"P. A. López-Valencia"
palopezv at gmail.com
Wed Sep 10 12:38:16 UTC 2014
On 10/09/14 00:20, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
>> First of all, I really *really* urge you to stop using phrases like
> 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
>> 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.
More information about the aur-general