Andrew> Both are shipped as Java bytecode (*.class files, packaged in Andrew> a *.jar archive) and with an "Architecture: all" since Java Andrew> bytecode is supposed to be portable.
Andrew> seems to forbid both code with native parts, and Java code Andrew> compiled to machine binaries with gcj. It seems reasonable to Andrew> me to allow both of these. Ola> Well I do not really understand this. Java code is supposed to be Ola> portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a Ola> java program and should not be packaged as a such. Non java Ola> components should be extracted to a separate package IMHO. If you permit an outsider to intrude... :) Why must all lib*-java packages depend on java-virtual-machine? gcj is supposed to be able to compile class files into native code, isn't it? So these class libraries are, in theory, usable by people who just use them for gcj based develompent and link them into their executables. I am sure I overlook something trivial, please point it out for my edification :) -- Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A. GPG: 433BA087 9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8 6E5A 8CA3 27DB 433B A087 EngSoc adopts market economy: cheap is wasteful, efficient is expensive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
