Re: GCJ Native Proposal

2005-05-02 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:39:00 +0200, Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, both -jbi and -bcabi are really bad choices because they are > somewhat obscure technical terms that don't really help the users to > know what is special about the package. In a future release the bcabi > will also

remove xml-soap, lib-saxon-java, libservlet2.2-java

2005-05-02 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
FYI. --- Begin Message --- Topics: Bug#307284: ftp.debian.org: please remove xml-soap, outdated Bug#307288: ftp.debian.org: please remove lib-saxon-java binary package Bug#307335: ftp.debian.org: please remove libservlet2.2-java --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package: ftp.debi

Re: GCJ Native Proposal

2005-05-02 Thread Michael Koch
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 04:26:19PM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote: > 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

Re: GCJ Native Proposal

2005-05-02 Thread Michael Koch
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 11:30:53PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 21:30 +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > > We can decide to pubild only some archs to native. E.g. native libs for > > Eclipse > > make little sense on arm. > > Why does it make less sense on arm then on any

Re: GCJ Native Proposal

2005-05-02 Thread Michael Koch
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:24:32AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:39:00 +0200, > Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, both -jbi and -bcabi are really bad choices because they are > > somewhat obscure technical terms that don't really help the users to > > know