On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:55:00PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > 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? ;-)
Which would be a really bad choice. Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
