* Michael Koch [2006-02-09 08:00:29+0100] > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:00:09AM +0200, Recai Okta? wrote: > > Yes, I mean the later. Then for the moment, I think including the > > lib*.so files in libpackage-java deb should be a reasonable choice > > (though it makes the package arch dependent)? Otherwise I have to > > invent a name. > > Why is it hard to "invent" libpackage-java-gcj? Sorry, I forgot to write > about the *-gcj extension.
Thanks. My thought was based on the last paragraph of §2.4 of Java policy. I'm going to use -gcj. Cheers, -- roktas
