[aur-general] Java name guideliness

Pablo Lezaeta Reyes prflr88 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 19 04:02:27 UTC 2014

but upstream name not necesary mean the name that the encapsulate that
contain the package need to be named.

There ar a handfull either throw arch and aur history and actual named
packages that not follow the name.

but too looking to the other packages in aur the version is alwas separate
from the name of the package so in the end <namepackage>-<version> will be
Upstream not give a version or give a "-" or a plain space for versions if
ou are going to follow uptream.

2014-09-18 16:54 GMT-03:00 Det <nimetonmaili at gmail.com>:

> On Thu Sep 11 14:02:41 EDT 2014, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote:
> > If look to the pther packages (not java) the fewers who need a version
> they
> > apend the versión at the endm so for consistency whit the all others
> > packages I think is better keep the version at the end:
> > <vendor>-<jre/jdk>-<version>: oracle/openjdk-jre-7/8
> We can't do that, because our own upstream (the OpenJDK packager) alredy
> decided on it. To change it you're going to have to start a bug
> report/feature request on our own packages.
> If you can change _his_ mind, then we can talk about implementing that in
> the AUR as well.
> On Thu Sep 11 18:13:11 EDT 2014, Justin Dray wrote:
> > The fact that one naming convention or the other being chosen is still
> not
> > the issue, it's the fact that in the interim there are *both* packages in
> > there.
> Yes, I get that you're eager to get whatever parties out of there ASAP, and
> sort it out later. Unfortunately, that's not how it's going to play out and
> this discussion so far has prevented the proper way from happening as well,
> as I was already pointed out some time ago.
> Therefore, I'm taking this and my suggestions back directly to the
> respective maintainers, and only if they want to continue it here, we will.
>                           Det

*Pablo Lezaeta*

More information about the aur-general mailing list