1 |
2008/9/12 Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o>: |
2 |
> Andrew John Hughes kirjoitti: |
3 |
>> |
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 |
> |
17 |
> A good post and hopefully useful to readers out there but my main concern |
18 |
> really wasn't the issue of openjdk vs. icedtea but your choice of naming it |
19 |
> icedtea6 and icedtea (Debian like) instead of doing it the Gentoo way with |
20 |
> slots. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
I didn't include this issue because I believed we'd already discussed it ages |
24 |
ago and I'm surprised to see it come up again. There is nothing Debian-like |
25 |
about the naming - in fact, Debian has only packaged IcedTea6 recently, |
26 |
and does so as OpenJDK - I mentioned this in my original e-mail. It is |
27 |
Sun who refer to it as OpenJDK6 or even open6, in the same manner as JDK7, etc. |
28 |
|
29 |
Anyway, what I'm saying is that this isn't a name change simply based |
30 |
on versions |
31 |
but these are completely different projects. There have different source trees |
32 |
and can be in completely different states, depending on what has been |
33 |
merged between |
34 |
the two. More practically, there would be version number clashes with |
35 |
keeping them |
36 |
both in a 'icedtea' directory, IcedTea 1.7 appearing to be later than |
37 |
IcedTea6 1.2 for one. |
38 |
|
39 |
>> With Gentoo, the presence of USE flags and local |
40 |
>> settings |
41 |
>> mean that we don't know what will result from the ebuild in binary |
42 |
>> form. Some builds will be roughly equivalent to the builds in Fedora, |
43 |
>> Debian |
44 |
>> and Ubuntu, but some may not. There is functionality in IcedTea, such |
45 |
>> as the ability to use CACAO instead of HotSpot, that would mean |
46 |
>> the resulting binary does not qualify to be called OpenJDK (such |
47 |
>> packages are called cacao-oj6 in Debian and Ubuntu for example). |
48 |
> |
49 |
> I think we can solve this by having a virtual openjdk ebuild using use deps |
50 |
> that will force a certain set of features on the icedtea ebuild. |
51 |
> |
52 |
|
53 |
I don't have a problem with that. Better still, make this a binary and consider |
54 |
applying for TCK access to certify it. This will definitely be needed on lower |
55 |
spec. machines that will struggle to build IcedTea. Think in terms of |
56 |
OpenOffice.org... ;) |
57 |
|
58 |
> Regards, |
59 |
> Petteri |
60 |
> |
61 |
> |
62 |
> |
63 |
|
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
Andrew :-) |
68 |
|
69 |
Support Free Java! |
70 |
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK |
71 |
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath |
72 |
http://openjdk.java.net |
73 |
|
74 |
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) |
75 |
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 |