>First of all, I really *really* urge you to stop using phrases like "refusal" Refusal is what happend when two or more not agree in something I never mention who is refusing who cause both side from the vewpoint of the other is refusing the other side of view. >In fact, _nowhere_ do I see anybody refusing to do _anything_. One not want use the other guidelines, so using the bare meaning of refusal that mean not accdept the other. Maybe the way I use the word not is the correct, you knoe false friends in english. >or "this is sick". Maybe you are overreacting (or I not expresed it corretly), I mean that is no sane (synonimous of ill synonimos of sick) having all the packages with different names, that is simply confusing the user who want install a simple jdk packages (me, I ended more confusin with this).
I thing that is bvous that all are java. so why not something like <provider><jre/jdk>-<version>: openjdk-9 or oraclejdk-7. Note; Using Gmail Note 2: Sorry again if I use a false friend, misswitting, misuse of words, incorrect use of expesions incorrec sytaxis or ambiguous language and my words ended hurting someone, sorry. 2014-09-10 0:08 GMT-03:00 Justin Dray <[email protected]>: > Part of the issue here however is that now there are both jre7 and > jre7-oracle and so on duplicate packages in the AUR. If someone says 'oh, i > need oracle jdk, I can search on the AUR for that.' Well now they have to > go and read all of the comments and look around on the wiki/mailing > lists/forums to figure out which one they actually want. And it's not even > a dispute between different maintainers, 'joschi' is the maintainer for > both packages and are seemingly totally different; different groups, > different upstream urls, different dependencies, different > provides/conflicts. It also appears that jre8-oracle was merged in to jre > package recently, so there is another discrepancy in the naming there. > > I'm not fussed one way or another on the naming, but by having both, I've > really got to agree with Pablo; it's far from KISS. > > Regards, > Justin Dray > E: [email protected] > M: 0433348284 > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Det <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes <prflr88 at > gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Since the new java-common come to the repo Is now possible have > multiple > > > java, but this bring and open another issue, java naming scheme the guy > > in > > > jre/jdk[1] and jre-devel and jdk-devel refuse to follow a convention > non > > > generic name and the other maintaining jre7/jdk7 [2] and > > > jre7-oracle/jdk7-oracle that do the same [3] refuse to accept or merge > > > jre7-oracle into jre7 for the same reason even if the jre-oracle was > > merged > > > into jre, this is a chaos. > > > Many packages doing the same in different verion having different name > > > conventions and ALL arguin bein correct. > > > > > > There is need to a conventional standar name scheme or this will be > > worst, > > > instead to be kiss this is sick. > > > There is a name scheme or name convention to follow? > > > > First of all, I really *really* urge you to stop using phrases like > > "refusal" or "this is sick". If that really was the case, it would only > > split all parties further. It's not "refusal" to talk something through > > before doing it. > > > > In fact, _nowhere_ do I see anybody refusing to do _anything_. The talk > in > > jdk7[1] is discussion on the appropriate name, and what I told everybody > > both in there and jdk[2] was my view on things and why I did what I had > > done (use jdk/java-8-jdk as the name, rather than > > jdk8-oracle/java-8-oracle). You realise how unbelievably easy it is for > me > > to revert to the "jdk8-oracle" approach, if that winds up being the > > consensus? Or if I somehow wouldn't, then how easy would it be to kick me > > off from maintaining that thing? > > > > Enough of that already. Why I chose the "java-8-jdk" naming comes from > the > > fact that "java-8-openjdk" sounds like we're trying to do "java-<major > > version>-<project name>". The project name of JDK is not "Oracle JDK", > and > > that's why I chose it. Now, OpenJDK apparently still calls these projects > > by their "base name"[3], but _I_ would still prefer (read: I don't > > "refuse"; I prefer) having packages called "jdk8-openjdk" and "jdk" that > > install in "/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk/" and "/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jdk/", > > respectively. > > > > This also means we can currently do: > > > > $ man java-openjdk8 > > $ man java-jdk8 > > > > To access the man pages. I really didn't like the following at all: > > > > $ man java-openjdk8 > > $ man java8-oracle > > > > [1] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk7/ > > [2] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk/ > > [3] = http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/ > > > > Det > > > -- *Pablo Lezaeta*
