* Omair Majid <oma...@redhat.com> [2014-02-21 10:50]: > * Andrew Hughes <gnu.and...@redhat.com> [2014-02-21 10:36]: > > > I think the "j2" convention is reasonable. > > > > This is where we disagree. I may have agreed if this was new, but we've been > > using libjavalcms.so for the lifetime of 7 and I see no reason to change > > this. > > > > Also, "j2" seems pretty meaningless. > > I had the same thoughts at first. But I asked this same question [1] and > was informed that the 'j2' is for "java to" [2]. So this is the "java to > lcms" bridge.
To be clear, I will be happy to change the prefix to `j` or `java` or `jre` or anything else that there is some consensus on. Thanks, Omair -- PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681