Re: GCJ Native Proposal
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? ;-)
--
.''`.
: :' :rnaud
`. `'
`-
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Reply to: