[fedora-java] Enhanced aot-compile script

[Andrew Haley]

Gary Benson writes:
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Gary Benson writes:
 > > > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > > > Gary Benson writes:
 > > > > > 2) On the other hand, Fernando wants the two scripts to remain
 > > > > >    alternatives, but shared between all JVMs (not just GCJ
 > > > > >    ones).  My opinion is that something like this would be a
 > > > > >    good idea, but that acquiring the GCJ-specific command
 > > > > >    names for it is the wrong thing to do (not least because
 > > > > >    GCJ's database should be rebuilt whenever an rpm with
 > > > > >    GCJ-precompiled stuff is installed regardless of what JVM
 > > > > >    alternative is in force).
 > > > > 
 > > > > This is the issue that I am addressing.  
 > > > > 
 > > > > My suggestion solves this problem:
 > > > > 
 > > > > >    GCJ's database should be rebuilt whenever an rpm with
 > > > > >    GCJ-precompiled stuff is installed regardless of what JVM
 > > > > >    alternative is in force
 > > > > 
 > > > > ... without penalizing users who aren't installing gcj packages.
 > > > > It also abstracts away from the RPM specfiles the nitpicky gcj
 > > > > details.  This is better than having "gcj-dbtool --rebuild" or
 > > > > its equivalent in each specfile.
 > > > 
 > > > When will it be invoked if not in every specfile?
 > > 
 > > It will be invoked from the specfile, but by either
 > > 
 > > a.  Going to some java dir and running make, or
 > > b.  Running some VM-agnostic script that does a.
 > > 
 > > That way, should there ever be some other VM that does
 > > precompilation, we need only to add a make rule for whatever it
 > > needs.
 > 
 > Ok.  FWIW I perfer B, but it's really something for JPackage not
 > Fedora to decide.  As long as Fedora rpms can continue to call
 > 'rebuild-gcj-db' or 'gcj-dbtool --rebuild' until JPackage figure
 > out what they're doing then that's fine.

Well, OK: I don't mind.  Going through every RPM changing
"rebuild-gcj-db" to "gcj-dbtool --rebuild" and then changing it again
some time in the future sounds like a PITA to me ... but then I won't
be doing it!

Andrew.