> I suggest that we name the packages libfoo-java or in some > cases libfoo-version-java if that are necessary. > > Is that ok if I change the policy in that way? Fine in general with me, although I have a question about versions. Do we want libfoo-version-java or libfooversion-java? To me a package like libeditline-5-java seems stranger than libeditline5-java, although perhaps that's just me. Of course then libfooversion-java starts to look like the package simply offers bindings to the corresponding C library, which is often not the case. Not deeply fussed either way. Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Large-scale java policy violations Ben Burton
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Egon Willighagen
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Adam Heath
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ben Burton
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ola Lundqvist
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ben Burton
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ola Lundqvist
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ben Burton
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ola Lundqvist
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Egon Willighagen
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ola Lundqvist
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Stefan Gybas
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ola Lundqvist
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Ben Burton
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Stefan Gybas
- Re: Large-scale java policy violations Per Bothner