On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:01:23 +0100
Jan Schulz <jasc.usenet@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hallo Arnaud,
Hallo Jan,
> Hm, from my basic JNI knowledge from eclipse, the lib is loaded from
> code in a static block somewhere. Look for something like
> static {
> System.loadLibrary(name);
> }
>
> change the name probably involves renaming the native library and that
> call. If you want to support different versions of that lib, it is
> probably better to change the name to <name>-<version>.so. Thats what
> eclipse does.
>
> >Do I put it in /usr/lib/jni/?
>
> Yes.
Great, so I don't have to change the name of the shared library.
> <advertise>
> When we switch to the findjava system, it should even be possible to
> get the sun derived, binary only JVMs to include that dir in
> -Djava.library.path by setting that optionin the 'GENERAL_ARGS'
> variable of the java-config file. So to be policy complient, there
> isn't a need for wrapper scripts.
> </>
great
> >Do I have to split the package or can I just package it as 'charva'?
>
> When I read the policy right, it's better to split out *big* arch
> dependend portions, so if your whole package is only very small, just
> put everything into one package and label it as 'any' instead of
> 'all'. This will mean, that you have to build it on all platform
> (while you are on it: eclipse needs to have its libswt-*-java and
> eclipse-platform compiled on all kaffe platforms...), when i can' go
> into main...
>
> If the both parts are very large, then it would make sense to split
> it into one arch dependend and one 'arch all' package, but I gues that
> will never be achieved by a simple java lib...
The jni library is very smal but as you said, I prefer to split arch=all
and arch=any.. If there is a problem with ftp admin, I'll explain that
I'd like to split the package between arch dep/indep.
> >[I think it's very java-centric and it's the first time I'm dealing with
> >JNI! If debian-mentors is more appropriate, I'm also a subscriber, so
> >feel free to redirect the discussion on that list.]
>
> Read the policy, IMO it explains the problem quite good.
I already read it.
Many thanks for your comments.
--
.''`. Arnaud Vandyck
: :' : http://people.debian.org/~avdyk/
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgp5uK4DSPaLC.pgp
Description: PGP signature