On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:31:43PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: > On Sunday 12 May 2002 22:00, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > Ok, then it is just a question of naming. Say my foo library can be > > compiled to .class files and GCJ .so files. One option is to > > package both in libfoo-java, which would be architecture specific. > > But if you want to split them into an architecture-specific and an > > architecture-independent package, what do you call them? libfoo-java > > and libfoo-gcj-java? > > If it would be architecture specific it would be like stuff compiled from C. > Thus libfoo and not libfoo-gcj-java...
To clarify, I'm talking about Java code compiled (eg, by gcj) into architecture-specific machine code. These libraries are still meant to be used by Java code (also compiled with gcj), not C code. So I think java should still be part of the name. Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
