On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 17:24, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> However as gcj-compiled programs are no longer java (IMO) - it
> woulnd't harm if we delegate separate -gcj suffix for such
> packages.
The way I see it, the -gcj tag is useless and crufty. Why do I care
that it's a gcj program versus a gcc program or fortran program or cobol
program? All I care about is that it is architecture dependant and that
the proper dependancies are on my system. Both of these features are
taken care of in the control files, why do we need to overload the
package name with this information?
As for the -jni tag, I feel it's only useful in the specific case that I
indicated I'd implement in my ocf packages. Namely, when it's a JNI
(native) library only package *not* containing the corresponding .class
files. I vote this way because the contents of the package are a
libMyClass.so file and we want some way to tell the sysadmin "hey, this
library uses JNI calling convention".
If the same JNI library is packaged with the corresponding .class files,
then it should use the recommended -java tag as for all intents and
purposes, it's an architecture dependant Java library.
-joe
--
Innovation Software Group, LLC - http://www.innovationsw.com/
Business Automation Specialists
UNIX, Linux and Java Training
