W liście z czw, 12-09-2002, godz. 20:17, Robert Bihlmeyer pisze:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok. I'm thinking that maybe -java shoud be for "true" java and then
> > use -jni for everything that is not "true" java.
>
> FWIW, perl libraries are currently packaged as ...-perl regardless of
> whether they include (arch dependent) shared objects or only perl
> code. Actually of the packages ending their name in '-perl', 335 are
> arch:all, and 142 are not.
I'd like to say my opinion.
I think that using -java suffix is OK as long, as the code is such
package can be used by every standard JVM/classlib.
So it seems doubful if we need -jni suffix if such code can be run
by every ordinary JVM (but I would not be against such suffix
if the others want to go this way).
However as gcj-compiled programs are no longer java (IMO) - it
woulnd't harm if we delegate separate -gcj suffix for such
packages.
Regards
Grzegorz B. Prokopski
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
