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

[Andrew Haley]

On 04/16/2012 11:27 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 12:19 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yes, it will.
> If you do not want, then I think we are done here :)
> 
> And because I'm definitely against renaming or against wrapping java-plugin package, then it looks like I'm done to.

Well, requires are supposed to mean that Package X requires Package Y
to run.  I don't think much good will come from lying to the packaging
system (and the user).

> Lets see what guys from CA will think about whole this "issue".

CA ?

Andrew.