Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Le mardi 23 mars 2010 à 10:26 +0100, Niels Thykier a écrit : >> Hi >> >> I have compiled two patches against the current policy that I intend to >> apply Friday assuming there are no objections. > Nice work. Glad to see that finally evolving. > > Could you just add a few bit on the gcj part ? > * What it is/was ? Personally I felt the first paragraph of the gcj part was enough. To the best of my knowledge this is why the gcj stuff is. If you feel it is not enough (and the addition draft below does not help), then I will need some pointers to what you would like to see. That being said I think it would be easier to understand if I replaced "native code" with "machine code" and I intend to implement this with the next diff. > * Why it is no longer allowed ? > * What kind of information are expected to grant a packager the > permission to ship gcj-code > Sure, what do you think of this: In the past gcj packages were added in order to improve performance of Java libraries and programs. However, this performance comes at the cost of size, extra compilation time and creates architecture dependent packages. A request for permission to add gcj should packages should convince the Java Team that the performance boost of adding the gcj package or packages out-weights the disadvantages. The request and the permission may be limited to certain architectures. > Thanks > Sylvestre > > I will generate a new patch if you approve of the above. ~Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature