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
