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