Stephane Bortzmeyer Writes: > > In addition, you don't seem to be aware that the Java programming > > language and the ".class" bytecode format are two entirely different > > things, > > Thanks. Before you, nobody on debian-java was aware of the difference.
I disagree. I was/am well aware of the difference between Java code and Java bytecode. To me, it's like knowing the difference between .C source code and .O object code. > > package, "bock", has nothing to do with the bytecode format at all; it > > compiles Java source code to C. > > I regard it as a Java compiler, then. Of a "special" kind. I have to admit, strictly speaking, anything that takes .java source code and gets it into a format that is runnable is a java compiler by definition of 'compiler' (and what it's "compiling"). BUT... I think we need to look at what end-users would want out of a package that provides 'java-compiler'. Personally, I would want something that gave me java bytecode. So, from a user point of view I would not want to see bock provide 'java-compiler', because then I might install that instead of a "normal" java compiler that provides bytecode. The only thing to look at is if bock needs anything else, like java .jar class libraries to be able to do it's compilation. If it is dependent on NO java anything, then I can see the point that there is no reason for it to even depend on java-common. If bock, does require some kind of java library, or resource to work, then I think it should depend on java-common and the appropriate other packages. ---- Cris J H -- Cris J. Holdorph [EMAIL PROTECTED]
