Re: [gentoo-java] OpenJDK, IcedTea and Package Naming

["Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

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.

> 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.

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]