[fedora-java] Enhanced aot-compile script

[Gary Benson]

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.

Cheers,
Gary