On 25 July 2010 18:17, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/25/2010 07:14 PM, Peter Lewis wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sunday 25 Jul 2010 at 16:50 Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
>>
>>> I also have some suggestions for these packages:
>>> - rename them from {jre,jdk} to {java6-sun-jre,java6-sun-jdk} or so would
>>> enable us to use different versions of SUN's JVM (Java5, 6 and 7)
>>>
>>
>> Well the open jdk package is called "openjdk6". It would be nice if all
>> the
>> similar packages had similar names, to make it obvious that they were
>> alternatives.
>>
>> So if you want to rename them, how about either calling them sunjdk6 and
>> sunjre6 or else renaming the open ones too to fit into the same scheme,
>> e.g.
>> java6-open-jdk? Although this has the down side that it no longer contains
>> the
>> phrase "openjdk" which is probably what some/most people search for.
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Pete.
>>
>
> i always hatted the debian naming scheme for java so -1 from me. but i'm
> not against to use upstream name.
>
> --
> Ionuț
>
Well there are several reasons in this renaming proposal :
1) to add some more info about the package
2) to make the difference between versions of Java. ie if we include the "6"
in names we could have (in a shorter scheme) jdk6 and jre6, jdk5 and jre5,
jdk7 and jre7. Because nowadays, upgrading jre from 6 to 7 would un-install
jre v6. As you all know these different versions of JVM (5 and 6 and
tomorrow 7) are both used a lot !
> i always hatted the debian naming scheme for java so -1 from me. but i'm
not against to use upstream name
What about splitting the PKGBUILD?
> So if you want to rename them, how about either calling them sunjdk6 and
sunjre6 or else renaming the open ones too to fit into the same scheme, e.g.
java6-open-jdk
I do agree.
