Re: Java Policy.
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Andrew> No it's not. But you can use the gcj produced .so files
> Andrew> with gcj. If I do all my Java development with gcj,
> Andrew> Debian packages containing Java libraries compiled to
> Andrew> .so's are very useful to me.
> They might be useful; they're no longer Java, any more than
> /lib/libc-2.2.5.so is C.
I don't mean to argue about words. gcj-produced .so libraries are
meant to be called from Java, but you need to use a use a special
loader. They have various other differences from "normal" Java
libraries, which matter for some purposes. I'm sure we agree about
As for the question of what to call the packages, I think they're
functionally similar enough to "normal" Java libraries that java
should be in the package name (eg, libfoo-gcj-java). Especially
since the GNU toolchain tends to be preferred for free software (I
expect this will become more true for Java in the future). But if
others disagree, I'll live with it.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org