Why not keep the source package name as "openjfx" and then name the binary package "openjdk-9-jfx"? Emmanuel Bourg 於 2017年10月23日 07:00 寫道: > Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit : > >> Are you aware if upstream is aware of these issues, and if they intend to stop >> using internal OpenJDK APIs? Any plans to get rid off the single file approach >> for the database files? > I don't know. At least they are aware that OpenJFX fails to build with a > raw OpenJDK not including OpenJFX and they seem willing to address that > issue. > > >> (C) looks like the best workaround for now. Looking at at least four security >> releases per year, and maybe the double amount of package uploads, the OpenJDK >> package has a higher upload frequency anyway. There is however a risk that an >> OpenJDK (security) update won't build anymore with a prebuilt OpenJFX (not sure >> if that is a real issue). In any case, the OpenJDK package should have a build >> profile to build without OpenJFX support. > Ok let's do that. The name of the package is open to discussion, as well > as how the OpenJFX files will be distributed between the openjdk-9-* > packages. > > For the name, since OpenJFX is now clearly becoming an extension of > OpenJDK I was thinking about naming the source package > "openjdk-9-openjfx" or "openjdk-9-jfx", and appending "-build" to the > binary package. What would be a good location for installing the build > directory? > > Regarding the distribution of the files, the lib/modules file of > openjdk-9-jre-headless will now contain the JavaFX classes, but the > native libraries should go into openjdk-9-jre. javapackager and > ant-javafx.jar would go into openjdk-9-jdk-headless. > > Emmanuel Bourg >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature