>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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. Does this really need to be part of the java policy? I thought the Java policy was really aimed only at things that would install .class or .jar files. Naming it the "java" policy is perhaps a bit misleading since it might include, say, Ada programs compiled to target the JVM. Perhaps calling it the "jvm policy" would be more accurate. Anyway, I'd like to see Java libraries built with gcj and installed as .so files. I think that would be useful. It's also useful to have common Java programs precompiled. For instance, with rhug I can build jasmin and treat it just like any compiled program; it is very convenient. So I think I'd like the Java policy to recommend that packagers also build a precompiled package for use with gcj. However, such packages wouldn't have to fall under the Java policy but instead under whatever policies govern other .so files. One oddity here is that with gcj the "-dev" package would also want to include the .jar files somehow (i.e., depend on the ordinary "java" package). And, perhaps, CNI headers generated with gcjh. Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
