If look to the pther packages (not java) the fewers who need a version they apend the versión at the endm so for consistency whit the all others packages I think is better keep the version at the end: <vendor>-<jre/jdk>-<version>: oracle/openjdk-jre-7/8
2014-09-11 13:41 GMT-03:00 Det <nimetonma...@gmail.com>: > More input. > > On 09/09/14 23:08, Justin Dray wrote: > > Part of the issue here however is that now there are both jre7 and > > jre7-oracle and so on duplicate packages in the AUR. > > Yes, but why are you bringing that up as an "issue", as we are trying to > decide exactly which one to keep before just removing the other. I think > you know neither I nor the maintainers were never for leaving both - we > just don't, at this point, know which one. > > I mean, isn't that like saying: > > A: We need to figure out the right type of fuel for this car. > B: Yes, but the issue is the car doesn't move. > A: Well. Yeah.. > > On 10/09/14 01:20, Pablo Lezaeta Reyes wrote: > > 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. > > Who is refusing whom? > > > One not want use the other guidelines, so using the bare meaning of > refusal > > that mean not accdept the other. > > But you see you hit the problem right there. We don't _have_ a guideline > for the naming. That's what the debate is about: we are trying to establish > one. > > >> 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) > > Ok. Just use "makes no sense". > > > I thing that is bvous that all are java. so why not something like > > <provider><jre/jdk>-<version>: openjdk-9 or oraclejdk-7. > > The names in the official repos are "jre/jdk8-openjdk", so that's why the > previous suggestion was "jre/jdk8-oracle". However, I believe it should be > pretty obvious which one you're dealing with, if a package is named just > "jre" or "jdk" (isn't that the ultimate "KISS"?). > > The "java-" prefix is used for "archlinux-java" (extra/java-common), and > already decided upstream. That I would refuse to divert from. > > On 10/09/14 08:38, P. A. López-Valencia wrote: > > My opinion is that the AUR should follow the example set by the Arch > > Linux developers in the extra repository and everything else must go, > > starting with the jdk/jre pair as clarity trumps over brevity in naming > > Explained above. As far as I know in all the years I maintained these > things, nobody ever confused them with OpenJDK, because that's always > mentioned. > > On 10/09/14 07:43, Rafael Ferreira wrote: > > +1 for 'java-8-jdk' and 'java-8-jre' is a good name. Just would be > > nice to have the word "Oracle" in the description, so a "yaourt -Ss > > oracle" could easily track your package. > > I agree. Added. > > > Again, to summarize the Java "guidelines": > > Package name: <project name><version>-<"vendor"> (e.g. jdk8-openjdk, > jre7-openjdk) > > "archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<"vendor">(/jre) (e.g. > java-8-openjdk, java-7-openjdk/jre) > > > And what I support for AUR (same as what we had before): > > Package name: <project name>(<version>) (e.g. jdk, jre7) > > "archlinux-java" name: java-<version>-<project name>(/jre) (e.g. > java-8-jdk, java-7-jre/jre) (just java-7-jre unsupported by > "archlinux-java") > > > Det > -- *Pablo Lezaeta*