Re: OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming

Andrew John Hughes kirjoitti:
> 2008/9/12 Petteri Räty <[email protected]>:
>> 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.
> 

The version number clashes can be solved with using <upstream 
drop>.<iced tea>. I really don't think this situation is much different 
from for example kde 3.5 and 4. Both trees are in active development and 
in different slots. It's still the same upstream project as far as 
upstream infra like home page goes.

Regards,
Petteri

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjKry4ACgkQcxLzpIGCsLR62QCePtlB1+HlyEdqc7TBc4a/lcLh
XlYAoJX0uShUgJjTVkWSWfkLa5546uBb
=6Fqz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----