Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:45:29 -0500, Barry Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Koch wrote: > | On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > [...] > |>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). > [...] > If upstream already has a name, we should adhere to that. We can't > reinvent the technical terminology of upstream sources because we don't > like it; that's what Microsoft is for. I think Ubuntu is going with the -jbi suffix, isn't it? ;-) -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `- 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]
