Gentoo Archives: gentoo-java

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org>
Cc: gentoo-java@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:04:46
Message-Id: 48CAAF29.9050304@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming by Andrew John Hughes
1 Andrew John Hughes kirjoitti:
2 > 2008/9/12 Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o>:
3 >> Andrew John Hughes kirjoitti:
4 >>> For those who hate the aboration of having the version number as part
5 >>> of the package name, note that this is intended to be short-lived.
6 >>> As the discussion above implies, the OpenJDK6 tree is a stop-gap,
7 >>> created to fulfill the need for a complete implementation now.
8 >>> When 1.7 is released, IcedTea will become the primary JDK again and
9 >>> IcedTea6 will cease development. At present, most of the
10 >>> maintenance work for OpenJDK6/IcedTea6 is being done by the IcedTea
11 >>> hackers; Sun only have Joe Darcy working on this. Their
12 >>> concentration is on 1.7. Thus, we should really note our appreciation
13 >>> of this work by naming the IcedTea project rather than
14 >>> hiding it under the name OpenJDK.
15 >>>
16 >> A good post and hopefully useful to readers out there but my main concern
17 >> really wasn't the issue of openjdk vs. icedtea but your choice of naming it
18 >> icedtea6 and icedtea (Debian like) instead of doing it the Gentoo way with
19 >> slots.
20 >>
21 >
22 > I didn't include this issue because I believed we'd already discussed it ages
23 > ago and I'm surprised to see it come up again. There is nothing Debian-like
24 > about the naming - in fact, Debian has only packaged IcedTea6 recently,
25 > and does so as OpenJDK - I mentioned this in my original e-mail. It is
26 > Sun who refer to it as OpenJDK6 or even open6, in the same manner as JDK7, etc.
27 >
28 > Anyway, what I'm saying is that this isn't a name change simply based
29 > on versions
30 > but these are completely different projects. There have different source trees
31 > and can be in completely different states, depending on what has been
32 > merged between
33 > the two. More practically, there would be version number clashes with
34 > keeping them
35 > both in a 'icedtea' directory, IcedTea 1.7 appearing to be later than
36 > IcedTea6 1.2 for one.
37 >
38
39 The version number clashes can be solved with using <upstream
40 drop>.<iced tea>. I really don't think this situation is much different
41 from for example kde 3.5 and 4. Both trees are in active development and
42 in different slots. It's still the same upstream project as far as
43 upstream infra like home page goes.
44
45 Regards,
46 Petteri

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature