| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 23:17 +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: |
| 2 |
... |
| 3 |
> dev-java/ has currently 338 packages (and growing ;) ) - maybe it is a |
| 4 |
> good idea to split it to multiple categories? (basic idea is much like |
| 5 |
> with perl-core or www-apache categories). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I personally like the idea. I don't see any harm in reorganizing into |
| 8 |
something more manageable, although some might feel it unnecessary from |
| 9 |
a "user" perspective. I still like it, though... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
As for your categories, I think they are a great start but I do have |
| 12 |
some suggestions: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> - java-vm/ - all JDKs and JREs (sun, blackdown, kaffe, etc.. jamvm, |
| 15 |
> sablevm ?) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I like it... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> - java-commons/ - all commons-* [ other possibility: java-jakarta - to |
| 21 |
> have all commons-* and jakarta-* packages in it ] |
| 22 |
> - java-libs/ - all packages providing Java API for other libraries |
| 23 |
> (like gnome-java, libgconf-java, libgtk-java, etc...) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I would probably combine these two into one category called java-libs/ |
| 26 |
instead of having them separated. However, I don't have a big issue |
| 27 |
with it either way. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> - java-web - WWW related packages (like template engines, web |
| 31 |
> frameworks) [ or java-www ] |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I'd probably make this one java-www/ as the "www" is consistent with |
| 34 |
current package categories in Portage. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> - java-db - database access, persistence frameworks, JDBC |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I like it... |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> - java-apps - standalone Java applications - like jvmstat, jython, etc) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Hmmm, I like this one too. It is consistent with other package |
| 45 |
categories like "www-apps/" and "sys-apps/". |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> all the rest could be left in dev-java or moved (preffered?) to |
| 49 |
> java-util/java-dev/java-misc. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I definitely agree that "dev-java/" should be changed. First of all, I |
| 52 |
like the idea of our categories being consistent with the convention |
| 53 |
"java-*" as you outline above. This way everything is grouped nicely |
| 54 |
together in the tree. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Furthermore, in keeping with the "catch-all" theme that this final |
| 57 |
category will most certainly be, I believe that "java-misc/" would be a |
| 58 |
good choice. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Thoughts/comments? |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
~ Greg |
Archives