On 25 July 2010 19:02, Guillaume ALAUX <guillaume@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 25 July 2010 18:45, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 07/25/2010 07:37 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:
>>
>>> 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 !
>>>
>>
>> well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and
>> jdk package when version 7 is released
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> the description of jre/jdk are pretty damn straight an if you really
>> search for java sun it would find jre/jdk
>>
>> pacman -Ss java sun
>>
>> --
>> Ionuț
>>
>
> > well, when this happens be sure that we will do that. add a new jre6 and
> jdk package when version 7 is released
> I see your point: jdk beeing the "current" version and jdk5 or jdk7
> alternatives like Peter said.
>
> What about paths? Today jdk/jre install in /opt/java, openjdk6 installs
> in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk. Wouldn't it be cleaner if we installed
> jdk/jre files in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-{jdk,jre} or something?
>
OK tested !
So! Basically, I made 2 versions of the package:
1) this one<http://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_current>
is
made of the PKGBUILDs of JRE and JDK from community merged and updated
2) this one<http://github.com/downloads/galaux/abs/java-sun-6u21-1.src.tar.gz_custom>
is
the same as 1) but I removed the construct.sh script and directly included
it into the PKGBUILD so that we don't have to get through a lot of
unnecessary lines of script for building. This doesn't bring a lot but looks
cleaner to me so... may not be that relevant !
Names are unchanged, ie jdk and jre. Paths are unchanged ie
/opt/java/{,jre}
Both have been tested for 32 and 64 arch and compile with openjdk6 and
jre/jdk. If a dev wants to use/test for official use in Arch repo
Guillaume
