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 object on the architectures they support. Otherwise, it would require the maintainer (or someone else) to manually build on other machines. This would probably result in certain platforms being less supported in Java than they could be. It's obviously a trade-off, and debian will have to make a decision. I don't think either one's "right", but I tend to like splitting it up, even if it does pollute the package name space, and unnecessarily increase the package count. Not that my opinion makes a difference here, Peter Kahle, Debian User On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:17:26PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> 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 perl > code. Actually of the packages ending their name in '-perl', 335 are > arch:all, and 142 are not. > > -- > Robbe -- Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin || Peter M Kahle Jr || PGP Public Key on Keyservers || || pkahle@pobox.com || http://www.kahlilia.org/~pkahle/ || ##===============================##======================================##
Attachment:
pgphdJWqNKuKT.pgp
Description: PGP signature