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:
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.
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 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.
Cheers,
Gary
