If Icedtea-web is the plug-in component for OpenJDK upstream, its name should be openjdk-plugin !

[Andrew Haley]

On 04/16/2012 11:06 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 11:31 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 04/16/2012 10:20 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> On 04/16/2012 10:32 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>> On 04/15/2012 08:27 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 16:12, Florian Weimer<fw at deneb.enyo.de>   wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Of course, in this conservative approach, those who type only "yum
>>>>> install openjdk" would get just the OpenJDK and not IcedTea, just as
>>>>> happens right now. But the openjdk-plugin alias name to Icedtea would
>>>>> greatly increase its visibility, *IMHO*
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that it would.
>>>>
>>>> I don't disagree that it would be much better if it were easier to find
>>>> the plugin.  I think it would be best if the browser told people how to
>>>> do it.  I'm not convinced that simply calling the plugin openjdk-plugin
>>>> would make it easier for many users.  But I am open to persuasion.
>>>
>>> To install icedtea-web together with java-1.x.openjdk is not hard
>>> from packager's perspective .... actually why we are not doing it?
>>
>> What exactly would you do?  Make openjdk depend on the plugin?  A
>> virtual package that depended on both?  Or... ?
>>
> Well metapackage can solve a lot, but it is to much effort which I
> don't think is worthy. But yes, it is option.
>
> To install icedtea-web together with java without unnecessary
> circular dependences is eg to make java-1.x-0-openjdk postin
> dependent on icedtea-web. My talk with local packagers about this
> topic ("logical dependence") was just short one and maybe there is
> cleaner solution. But this should help too.

Err, but that would make people install the plugin if they only wanted
Java, wouldn't it?  I don't want that.

Andrew.