Re: [PATCH] Update IcedTea.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Andreas Enge <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:33:56PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
>> > I would also like to suggest changing the names ‘icedtea6’ and
>> > ‘icedtea7’ to just ‘icedtea’.  They cannot be installed into the same
>> > profile anyway and users will most likely want the latest version by
>> > default.
>> 
>> These version numbers are anyway a bit confusing...
>> 
>> Is there a reason to keep icedtea6 around at all? If not, you might drop it
>> and rename icedtea7 as icedtea.

The only reason why I added icedtea7 and kept icedtea6 was that I
previously did not know that icedtea7 could be bootstrapped with GCJ.
In the first attempt to get icedtea7 to compile I used icedtea6 to build
it.  Now that this is no longer required, I think there is no good
reason not to rename “icedtea7” to “icedtea” and drop icedtea6.

It should be noted, though, that “icedtea7” inherits from “icedtea6” and
dropping “icedtea6” would either require a rewrite of the package
definition for “icedtea7” or force us to retain the “icedtea6”
definition (making it private).

~~ Ricardo