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.