1 |
Andrew John Hughes kirjoitti: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> For those who hate the aboration of having the version number as part |
4 |
> of the package name, note that this is intended to be short-lived. |
5 |
> As the discussion above implies, the OpenJDK6 tree is a stop-gap, |
6 |
> created to fulfill the need for a complete implementation now. |
7 |
> When 1.7 is released, IcedTea will become the primary JDK again and |
8 |
> IcedTea6 will cease development. At present, most of the |
9 |
> maintenance work for OpenJDK6/IcedTea6 is being done by the IcedTea |
10 |
> hackers; Sun only have Joe Darcy working on this. Their |
11 |
> concentration is on 1.7. Thus, we should really note our appreciation |
12 |
> of this work by naming the IcedTea project rather than |
13 |
> hiding it under the name OpenJDK. |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
A good post and hopefully useful to readers out there but my main |
17 |
concern really wasn't the issue of openjdk vs. icedtea but your choice |
18 |
of naming it icedtea6 and icedtea (Debian like) instead of doing it the |
19 |
Gentoo way with slots. |
20 |
|
21 |
> With Gentoo, the presence of USE flags and local |
22 |
> settings |
23 |
> mean that we don't know what will result from the ebuild in binary |
24 |
> form. Some builds will be roughly equivalent to the builds in Fedora, |
25 |
> Debian |
26 |
> and Ubuntu, but some may not. There is functionality in IcedTea, such |
27 |
> as the ability to use CACAO instead of HotSpot, that would mean |
28 |
> the resulting binary does not qualify to be called OpenJDK (such |
29 |
> packages are called cacao-oj6 in Debian and Ubuntu for example). |
30 |
|
31 |
I think we can solve this by having a virtual openjdk ebuild using use |
32 |
deps that will force a certain set of features on the icedtea ebuild. |
33 |
|
34 |
Regards, |
35 |
Petteri |