* Michael Koch [2006-02-09 08:00:29+0100]
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 02:00:09AM +0200, Recai Okta? wrote:
> > Yes, I mean the later. Then for the moment, I think including the
> > lib*.so files in libpackage-java deb should be a reasonable choice
> > (though it makes the package arch dependent)? Otherwise I have to
> > invent a name.
>
> Why is it hard to "invent" libpackage-java-gcj? Sorry, I forgot to write
> about the *-gcj extension.
Thanks. My thought was based on the last paragraph of §2.4 of Java policy.
I'm going to use -gcj.
Cheers,
--
roktas
(text/plain)