On Saturday 21 June 2008 02:45:13 Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> On Friday 20 June 2008 13:10:15 Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > Slashdot announces today than icedtea passes Java Test
>
> Compatibility Kit
>
> > http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/08/06/19/1754255.shtml
> >
> > Can we hope to finally get a sanitized JDK packaging now ?
>
> Something
>
> > just called 'java', not 'java-version-foo-codename-bar-vendor-baz',
>
> and
>
> > not relying on utterly complex alternative for its setup ? 90% of our
> > uses don't have any interest about being able to compile java
> > applications with all existing JDK in the world, they just want to be
> > able to install and run a working JVM simply.
>
> I'm uncertain whether I agree or not on this one. 'java' is provided by
> these packages, so ie. 'urpmi java' would install a java vm as user
> expects.
> For several alternatives in distro, I'm uncertain wrt the need for all
> these or not, and it's not any unique issue as similar cases exists for
> several different packages in distro with alternatives, but at least one
> thing is certain, and that is not basing our packages on and keeping
> in sync with jpackage will increase the maintenance needed a lot..
>
> I think most people would agree on sharing efforts with jpackage is
> the sensible choice, so any attempts at sanitizing java packaging
> should take jpackage into consideration (Fedora's lack of
> consideration is already painful enough).

I totally agree.

I'm not in favour but I'll not be against if someone do it but keeps the jpackage layout. But I don't see the benefit. Having multiple jres is not our biggest problem. JPackage is changing its layout for the next release so now is a good time talking to them about any change someone things it would be nice to have.
I think that java-1.5.0-sun and kaffe should be removed now and wait one release before dropping java-1.6.0 sun.