On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:49:53PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 01/25/10 05:37 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:27:12PM -0800, [email protected] wrote: > >>Next (but sadly not final) set of comments on the proposed renaming: > >> > >>SUNWj6rt system/java6 > >>... > >> > >> Besides the question of whether "java" things should be under > >> system, why "java6" instead of "java-6" as the latter seems > >> more aligned with the versioning we're doing. > >> > >> Rather than having "dev-tools" (and its -64 cousin) under > >> <whatever>/java6, perhaps it should be under the top-level > >> "developer"? > > > >Runtimes for languages are hardly just for developers, ergo they belong > >in system/ while pkgs specifically for developers belong in developer/. > > Wouldn't that logic then mean that *all* possible runtimes belong in > system?
It would. > Somehow, that seems odd to me. Why? Put asside for a moment the question of pkg name vs. classification. I want to run some app. That app needs the runtime(s) for some programming language(s) to be installed in order for me to run it. How could you not think that providing those runtimes is a responsibility of "the system"? What do we really mean by "system/"? "Core pkgs" for some definition of "core"? Or do we mean "core pkg delivered by Sun"? IMO "system" means "core stuff that doesn't have better top-level classification". The C runtime qualifies. The Java runtime does too. Same with Perl5, Ruby, and Python. And Guile, and Clojure, and Chicken, and... Alternatively, maybe we need a "runtime/" top-level. > >Of course, such a purist view means that one has to look in two places > >in the pkg name hierarchy for closely related pkgs. Not good. But then > >again, I don't think this problem is avoidable except by having aliases. > > Aliases double namespace usage which in turn creates extra (not > insignificant) overhead, and I think they can actually be confusing to > users since it may not be obvious that they are the same package. > Aliases also don't formally exist in pkg(5). > > This is why namespace != package classification. Back to naming vs. classification. Pkg names for related pkgs should share the same prefix. I forgot for a second that we had been talking about naming. But classification intrudes! Some parts of Java are for developers and some parts are not. Thus putting the Java pkg names under developer/ seems as wrong as to place them under system/. Nico -- _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
