Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Glep 55 use case: moving slot to file name

[Petteri Räty]

Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti:
> On 14:56 Fri 12 Sep     , Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> Petteri Räty wrote:
>>> Icedtea has two release tracks. One for the 1.7 OpenJDK code base and
>>> one for the 1.6 code base. They have independent version numbering so
>>> they can have collisions. By moving the slot to the file name we could
>>> have icedtea-1.2:1.6.ebuildN and icedtea-1.2:1.7.ebuildN. This
>>> particular situation can be worked around of course but it might also
>>> be better to keep the slot in the file name any way because I often
>>> find myself needing to know the slot of an ebuild (adjutrix -k of
>>> course already does this for me quite nicely).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Petteri
>>>
>> What's wrong with icedtea17-1.2 and icedtea16-1.2, because if its two
>> different code bases that come up with two different tarballs that could
>> be versioned differently or same that is the definition of a different
>> package.
>
> Have you considered reordering the versions it slightly, like this?
>
>   icedtea-1.7.${version} (SLOT=1.7)
>   icedtea-1.6.${version} (SLOT=1.6)
>
> This allows you to keep it in the same package name and thus be more
> similar to how upstream handles it. The SLOT still allows for useful
> dependencies, and people installing "any icedtea" will automatically get
> the newest one without having to somehow choose which of multiple
> package names is right.
>

I do know how to get around it, I did state that in my original email. 
As it happens we are having a discussion on gentoo-java mailing list on 
whether we should use icedtea-<openjdk build>.<icedtea version>.ebuild 
or have different packages for the different slots. One of the upstream 
authors argues for the icedtea6 approach but to me it seems a bit 
Debianish but I agree with him on that 6.09.1.2 is not that clean either.

Regards,
Petteri