[fedora-java] Enhanced aot-compile script

[Andrew Haley]

Gary Benson writes:
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Gary Benson writes:
 > > > Using make worries me because I frequently downgrade versions of
 > > > things while I'm testing.  Downgrading will give the .db files an
 > > > older timestamp, and the system database will not be rebuilt.
 > > 
 > > It'll give the directory a newer timestamp, so the system database
 > > will be rebuilt.
 > 
 > I need to see a makefile which does this.
 > 
 > > > That aside, rebuilding the databases takes no time at all.  Using
 > > > make seems to me to be adding an additional layer of complexity
 > > > for no perceptible gain.
 > > 
 > > So why worry about making rebuild an alternative?  If it's no big
 > > deal, why not always do it?
 > 
 > There's two issues here which I think you are confusing:

I don't think so!

 >  1) Presently, rebuild-gcj-db and aot-compile-rpm _are_ alternatives,
 >     though not between JVMs: they're shared between versions of
 >     java-1.4.2-gcj*-compat.  Tom Fitzsimmons wants them not to be
 >     alternatives, but to be in gcc subpackages (libgcj for r-g-d, and
 >     gcc-java for a-c-r).  Almost incidentally, Tom pointed out that
 >     rebuild-gcj-db is so small its functionality could easily be
 >     incorporated in gcj-dbtool.

Right.  No argument there.  I have no disagreement with any of this.
Making gcj-dbtool do the right thing is easy, and I'll do it.

 >  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.

 >     This needs more discussion (on JPackage lists so the relevant
 >     people see it) but the result of that discussion should not
 >     stop us from making the GCJ-specific changes to the
 >     GCJ-specific rpms that we need for future development.

Andrew.