On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Java code is supposed to be
> portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> java program and should not be packaged as a such.
You've been listening to too much Sun marketing. :-)
Please give a rational reason for your position. If some Java code
compiles with gcj, and runs better when compiled to machine code,
why not package it that way? (class files should probably be
distributed in a -dev package.)
> Non java
> components should be extracted to a separate package IMHO.
Ok, but I think you should make that explicit in the policy.
Something like,
If the Java code depends on code written in a "native" language
(eg, via JNI), the compiled .class files should be delivered in
an "Architecture: all" package that depends on an
architecture-specific package containing the compiled native
code.
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
