Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti:
On 14:56 Fri 12 Sep , Doug Goldstein wrote:Petteri Räty wrote:Icedtea has two release tracks. One for the 1.7 OpenJDK code base and one for the 1.6 code base. They have independent version numbering so they can have collisions. By moving the slot to the file name we could have icedtea-1.2:1.6.ebuildN and icedtea-1.2:1.7.ebuildN. This particular situation can be worked around of course but it might also be better to keep the slot in the file name any way because I often find myself needing to know the slot of an ebuild (adjutrix -k of course already does this for me quite nicely).Regards, PetteriWhat's wrong with icedtea17-1.2 and icedtea16-1.2, because if its two different code bases that come up with two different tarballs that could be versioned differently or same that is the definition of a different package.Have you considered reordering the versions it slightly, like this? icedtea-1.7.${version} (SLOT=1.7) icedtea-1.6.${version} (SLOT=1.6)This allows you to keep it in the same package name and thus be more similar to how upstream handles it. The SLOT still allows for useful dependencies, and people installing "any icedtea" will automatically get the newest one without having to somehow choose which of multiple package names is right.
I do know how to get around it, I did state that in my original email. As it happens we are having a discussion on gentoo-java mailing list on whether we should use icedtea-<openjdk build>.<icedtea version>.ebuild or have different packages for the different slots. One of the upstream authors argues for the icedtea6 approach but to me it seems a bit Debianish but I agree with him on that 6.09.1.2 is not that clean either.
Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
