I have no idea what Ubuntu is going to do, as I ran out of time to do it. I will assuradly do what Debian does, so I'm here to influence Debian's decision. ;). Either way, I think bcabi is a stupid name. Even spelled out it doesn't say anything "binary compatible application binary interface". Binary compatible with what? It doesn't say anything at all. Even -native would be better.
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 21:28 +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > 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/ > > -- Jerry Haltom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
