[aur-general] Java name guideliness

[Det]

More input.

On 09/09/14 23:08, Justin Dray wrote:
> Part of the issue here however is that now there are both jre7 and
> jre7-oracle and so on duplicate packages in the AUR.

Yes, but why are you bringing that up as an "issue", as we are trying to
decide exactly which one to keep before just removing the other. I think
you know neither I nor the maintainers were never for leaving both - we
just don't, at this point, know which one.

I mean, isn't that like saying:

A: We need to figure out the right type of fuel for this car.
B: Yes, but the issue is the car doesn't move.
A: Well. Yeah..

On 10/09/14 01:20, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
> 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.

Who is refusing whom?

> One not want use the other guidelines, so using the bare meaning of
refusal
> that mean not accdept the other.

But you see you hit the problem right there. We don't _have_ a guideline
for the naming. That's what the debate is about: we are trying to establish
one.

>> 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)

Ok. Just use "makes no sense".

> I thing that is bvous that all are java. so why not something like
> <provider><jre/jdk>-<version>: openjdk-9 or oraclejdk-7.

The names in the official repos are "jre/jdk8-openjdk", so that's why the
previous suggestion was "jre/jdk8-oracle". However, I believe it should be
pretty obvious which one you're dealing with, if a package is named just
"jre" or "jdk" (isn't that the ultimate "KISS"?).

The "java-" prefix is used for "archlinux-java" (extra/java-common), and
already decided upstream. That I would refuse to divert from.

On 10/09/14 08:38, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:
> 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

Explained above. As far as I know in all the years I maintained these
things, nobody ever confused them with OpenJDK, because that's always
mentioned.

On 10/09/14 07:43, Rafael Ferreira wrote:
> +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.

I agree. Added.


Again, to summarize the Java "guidelines":

Package name: <project name><version>-<"vendor"> (e.g. jdk8-openjdk,
jre7-openjdk)

"archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<"vendor">(/jre) (e.g.
java-8-openjdk, java-7-openjdk/jre)


And what I support for AUR (same as what we had before):

Package name: <project name>(<version>) (e.g. jdk, jre7)

"archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<project name>(/jre) (e.g.
java-8-jdk, java-7-jre/jre) (just java-7-jre unsupported by
"archlinux-java")


                    Det