Gary Benson writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > David Walluck writes: > > > Also, I thought aot-compile was a good script, but it was done > > > away with. Wouldn't it make sense to bring this back and have a > > > script that didn't rely on rpm, and then have rpm call this script > > > instead? This way, not only other RPM-based distros, but possibly > > > Debian or Ubuntu could even pick it up. > > > > aot-compile-rpm doesn't rely on RPM at all -- it's just REALLY badly > > named! :-) > > Not strictly true. It does have RPM-specific bits, but they're very > very small: 10 lines out of 436. I spoke to some of the Debian and > Ubuntu guys at DevJam about abstracting it but that's difficult to do > whilst it's alternatives-managed. > > Of course, doing this would make rpm a particularly bad home for it. > The obvious place is in gcc itself (and aot-compile-rpm itself could > either go there or in rpm) but that would mean being tied to gcc's > necessarily slow release cycle. gcc doesn't seem to be having a very slow release cycle at the moment: we've seen GCC 4.0.2 in September, GCC 4.0.1 in July and GCC 4.0.0 in April. I can't see any good reason not to move aot-compile-* to gcc, with a view eventially to make it unnecessary by folding all its functions into gcj itself. Andrew.
