Re: GCJ Native Proposal
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/
Reply to: