Re: GCJ Native Proposal
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't say anything "binary compatible application
binary interface". Binary compatible with what? It doesn't say anything
at all. Even -native would be better.
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 21:28 +0200, Michael Koch wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:55:00PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:45:29 -0500,
> > Barry Hawkins <barry@alltc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Koch wrote:
> > > | On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > |>I would like to name the secondary native packages with a -jbi prefix
> > > |>(Java Binary Interface). Some people like the name -bcabi because that
> > > |>is what the GCJ folks tend to refer to it as. BC ABI: Binary Compatible
> > > |>Application Binary Interface. I don't think bcabi is descriptive at all.
> > > |
> > > | -jbi is a bad name as none else on this planet knows the interface under
> > > | this name I would prefer -bcabi (as this is the name its called
> > > | upstream) or -gcj (to make clean where it comes from).
> > > [...]
> > > If upstream already has a name, we should adhere to that. We can't
> > > reinvent the technical terminology of upstream sources because we don't
> > > like it; that's what Microsoft is for.
> >
> > I think Ubuntu is going with the -jbi suffix, isn't it? ;-)
>
> Which would be a really bad choice.
>
>
> Michael
> --
> Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
>
> Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
>
>
--
Jerry Haltom <wasabi@larvalstage.net>
Reply to: