Gentoo Archives: gentoo-java

From: Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew@××××××××××.org>
To: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-java@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:08:14
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming by "Petteri Räty"
2008/9/12 Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o>:
> Andrew John Hughes kirjoitti: >> >> For those who hate the aboration of having the version number as part >> of the package name, note that this is intended to be short-lived. >> As the discussion above implies, the OpenJDK6 tree is a stop-gap, >> created to fulfill the need for a complete implementation now. >> When 1.7 is released, IcedTea will become the primary JDK again and >> IcedTea6 will cease development. At present, most of the >> maintenance work for OpenJDK6/IcedTea6 is being done by the IcedTea >> hackers; Sun only have Joe Darcy working on this. Their >> concentration is on 1.7. Thus, we should really note our appreciation >> of this work by naming the IcedTea project rather than >> hiding it under the name OpenJDK. >> > > A good post and hopefully useful to readers out there but my main concern > really wasn't the issue of openjdk vs. icedtea but your choice of naming it > icedtea6 and icedtea (Debian like) instead of doing it the Gentoo way with > slots. >
I didn't include this issue because I believed we'd already discussed it ages ago and I'm surprised to see it come up again. There is nothing Debian-like about the naming - in fact, Debian has only packaged IcedTea6 recently, and does so as OpenJDK - I mentioned this in my original e-mail. It is Sun who refer to it as OpenJDK6 or even open6, in the same manner as JDK7, etc. Anyway, what I'm saying is that this isn't a name change simply based on versions but these are completely different projects. There have different source trees and can be in completely different states, depending on what has been merged between the two. More practically, there would be version number clashes with keeping them both in a 'icedtea' directory, IcedTea 1.7 appearing to be later than IcedTea6 1.2 for one.
>> With Gentoo, the presence of USE flags and local >> settings >> mean that we don't know what will result from the ebuild in binary >> form. Some builds will be roughly equivalent to the builds in Fedora, >> Debian >> and Ubuntu, but some may not. There is functionality in IcedTea, such >> as the ability to use CACAO instead of HotSpot, that would mean >> the resulting binary does not qualify to be called OpenJDK (such >> packages are called cacao-oj6 in Debian and Ubuntu for example). > > I think we can solve this by having a virtual openjdk ebuild using use deps > that will force a certain set of features on the icedtea ebuild. >
I don't have a problem with that. Better still, make this a binary and consider applying for TCK access to certify it. This will definitely be needed on lower spec. machines that will struggle to build IcedTea. Think in terms of ;)
> Regards, > Petteri > > >
-- Andrew :-) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 ( Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>