On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > Attention Java Maintainers: This Effects You > > > This is a recap of an ad-hoc discussion a number of Java maintainers had > a few minutes ago in #debian-java concerning our direction with regards > to including native GCJ compiled Jar files in our packages. > > Brief overview: gcj-4.0 is now in experimental. What it gives us is the > ability to package native binary .so files along side their .jar > counterparts for usage with gij (the GCJ interpreter, a virtual > machine). When these .so files are present (in the correct location, > registered with the correct mechanism) gij will load them automatically > and use them in the place of the corresponding .jar file. The main > motivation for this is speed. There is no JIT overhead involved and it > runs native, not interpreted. It is worth noting that the Kaffe folks > want to integrate support for this binary interface into Kaffe. > > This begs the question then: How do we make these native .so files > available in our packages to our users. A number of ideas were > considered: > > a) Include the .so along with the .jar in the same deb. > b) Create a separate package for the .so. > > The first one (a) can be discounted because it would convert every Java > package into a binary: arch package. This isn't feasible for obvious > reasons: we like archive space! > > The second one is the best one. It minimizes archive space. It will hit > the buildds however, as it requires the binary-indep build process in > order to run binary-arch.
I vote for (b). Fedora does (a) but that had a larger discussion about it and the only readon they dont did was that RPM has no Recommends. > The -java package would ideally Recommend the second package. Good idea. And the native library need to depend on exact the same Source-Version of the -java package. > I would like to name the secondary native packages with a -jbi prefix > (Java Binary Interface). Some people like the name -bcabi because that > is what the GCJ folks tend to refer to it as. BC ABI: Binary Compatible > Application Binary Interface. I don't think bcabi is descriptive at all. -jbi is a bad name as none else on this planet knows the interface under this name I would prefer -bcabi (as this is the name its called upstream) or -gcj (to make clean where it comes from). Michael -- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
