Re: [PATCH] Update IcedTea.

[Andreas Enge]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> 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.

Great!

> 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).

Rewriting the icedtea(7) definition sounds like the proper solution to me.

Thanks!

Andreas