Hi
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:32:34PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > Well the -java name extension should only (have I written that in policy?)
> > be used for arch-independent packages. I would recommend an -jni name
> > extension instead.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Well. It is mostly because to help the build daemons. Many java packages
> (especially in the contrib section) depend on non-packaged stuff to build
> the package. So arch independent -java packages are really nice.
I'm not sure I see how this hel
Appropriate timing for me. I was planning on packaging portions of OCF,
which will include some JNI libraries.
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 09:12, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Well. It is mostly because to help the build daemons. Many java packages
> > (especially in the contrib section) depend on non-packag
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:00:03AM -0400, Joe Phillips wrote:
> I'm in favor of using the -java for JNI + supporting java classes.
> After all, it's still a Java library - it's just architecture
> dependant. Instead of using -jni, I vote the package be built
> architecture dependant. eg. as o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I'm in favor of using the -java for JNI + supporting java classes.
FWIW, I support this also. But to go into more detail:
> - arch-dependant JNI libraries go into libocf-pcsc and similar,
> recommending (or depending on - I'll accept suggestions
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 10:35, Ben Burton wrote:
> So I guess my stance is then to either:
> - - use a single package named libfoo-java with both the java classes and the C
> library, or:
> - - use two packages, these being libfoo-java containing the java classes and
> libfoo-jni containing the C
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:15:13PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:00:03AM -0400, Joe Phillips wrote:
>
> > I'm in favor of using the -java for JNI + supporting java classes.
> > After all, it's still a Java library - it's just architecture
> > dependant. Instead of usin
Hi
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 12:35:42AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > I'm in favor of using the -java for JNI + supporting java classes.
>
> FWIW, I support this also. But to go into more detail:
I'd like to extend this some.
> > - arch-dep
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:12:00PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > Well. It is mostly because to help the build daemons. Many java packages
> > (especially in the contrib section) depend on non-packaged stuff to build
> > the package. So arch in
Hi again.
I have a new (very similar to the last one) that should go into
the policy.
JNI, gcj and other architecture dependend versions of java:
JNI libraries consist of something that is architecture dependent and
possibly(?) architecture independent java classes. These should go into
a packa
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 17:20, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Now I'm more convinced of using -jni as extension. Yes I know I'm changing
> constantly ;)
As I started this thread, I suppose I best say something.
I am also in favour of the pure approach -- pure Java libraries in
libfoo-java, which depends o
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. I'm thinking that maybe -java shoud be for "true" java and then
> use -jni for everything that is not "true" java.
FWIW, perl libraries are currently packaged as ...-perl regardless of
whether they include (arch dependent) shared objects or only pe
W liście z czw, 12-09-2002, godz. 20:17, Robert Bihlmeyer pisze:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok. I'm thinking that maybe -java shoud be for "true" java and then
> > use -jni for everything that is not "true" java.
>
> FWIW, perl libraries are currently packaged as ...-perl
The problem here is that a package that includes jni and Java code
probably can't be auto-built on all architectures, even those that
have support for the correct JVM, because the JVM isn't included in
the distro. By splitting it up, the auto-builders will do the job of
constructing the shared obj
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 17:24, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> However as gcj-compiled programs are no longer java (IMO) - it
> woulnd't harm if we delegate separate -gcj suffix for such
> packages.
The way I see it, the -gcj tag is useless and crufty. Why do I care
that it's a gcj program versus a gc
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:49:26AM +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> I am considering packaging jpcsc, the Java interface to the PCSC
> smartcard libraries. It consists of several parts:
>
> * a Java OO wrapper
> * a JNI library
> * Javadocs of the API
>
> Obviously, because of the JNI this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Well the -java name extension should only (have I written that in policy?)
> be used for arch-independent packages. I would recommend an -jni name
> extension instead.
Hmm.. I packaged libreadline-java (a small JNI library with a couple of
wrapper
Hi
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:32:34PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > Well the -java name extension should only (have I written that in policy?)
> > be used for arch-independent packages. I would recommend an -jni name
> > extension instead.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Well. It is mostly because to help the build daemons. Many java packages
> (especially in the contrib section) depend on non-packaged stuff to build
> the package. So arch independent -java packages are really nice.
I'm not sure I see how this help
Appropriate timing for me. I was planning on packaging portions of OCF,
which will include some JNI libraries.
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 09:12, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Well. It is mostly because to help the build daemons. Many java packages
> > (especially in the contrib section) depend on non-package
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:00:03AM -0400, Joe Phillips wrote:
> I'm in favor of using the -java for JNI + supporting java classes.
> After all, it's still a Java library - it's just architecture
> dependant. Instead of using -jni, I vote the package be built
> architecture dependant. eg. as op
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I'm in favor of using the -java for JNI + supporting java classes.
FWIW, I support this also. But to go into more detail:
> - arch-dependant JNI libraries go into libocf-pcsc and similar,
> recommending (or depending on - I'll accept suggestions)
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 10:35, Ben Burton wrote:
> So I guess my stance is then to either:
> - - use a single package named libfoo-java with both the java classes and the
> C
> library, or:
> - - use two packages, these being libfoo-java containing the java classes and
> libfoo-jni containing the
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:15:13PM +0200, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:00:03AM -0400, Joe Phillips wrote:
>
> > I'm in favor of using the -java for JNI + supporting java classes.
> > After all, it's still a Java library - it's just architecture
> > dependant. Instead of using
Hi
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 12:35:42AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > I'm in favor of using the -java for JNI + supporting java classes.
>
> FWIW, I support this also. But to go into more detail:
I'd like to extend this some.
> > - arch-depe
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:12:00PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > Well. It is mostly because to help the build daemons. Many java packages
> > (especially in the contrib section) depend on non-packaged stuff to build
> > the package. So arch ind
Hi again.
I have a new (very similar to the last one) that should go into
the policy.
JNI, gcj and other architecture dependend versions of java:
JNI libraries consist of something that is architecture dependent and
possibly(?) architecture independent java classes. These should go into
a packag
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 17:20, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Now I'm more convinced of using -jni as extension. Yes I know I'm changing
> constantly ;)
As I started this thread, I suppose I best say something.
I am also in favour of the pure approach -- pure Java libraries in
libfoo-java, which depends on
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. I'm thinking that maybe -java shoud be for "true" java and then
> use -jni for everything that is not "true" java.
FWIW, perl libraries are currently packaged as ...-perl regardless of
whether they include (arch dependent) shared objects or only per
W liście z czw, 12-09-2002, godz. 20:17, Robert Bihlmeyer pisze:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok. I'm thinking that maybe -java shoud be for "true" java and then
> > use -jni for everything that is not "true" java.
>
> FWIW, perl libraries are currently packaged as ...-perl
The problem here is that a package that includes jni and Java code
probably can't be auto-built on all architectures, even those that
have support for the correct JVM, because the JVM isn't included in
the distro. By splitting it up, the auto-builders will do the job of
constructing the shared obje
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 17:24, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> However as gcj-compiled programs are no longer java (IMO) - it
> woulnd't harm if we delegate separate -gcj suffix for such
> packages.
The way I see it, the -gcj tag is useless and crufty. Why do I care
that it's a gcj program versus a gcc
32 matches
Mail list logo
