On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:32:09 AM Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:42:53AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Monday, February 06, 2012 09:31:50 AM Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > > > Ruby 1.9.3 has finally made it into Rawhide, there are still few more > > > packages that need to be built, but otherwise the transitions was > > > successful. > > > > > > Please note again, that soname has been bumped to 1.9.1 and license is > > > changed from GPLv2 or Ruby to BSD or Ruby, as already announced. > > > > Would have been nice if this project had kicked off rebuilds like other > > soname bump projects do. :) I'm finding a problem with my package. > > According to the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby > > guidelines, I should be doing the ruby_sitearch macro. But this seems to > > point to /usr/local/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/ and I would have expected it > > to be somewhere else like /usr/lib64/ruby/... > > > > Did this really change to /usr/local/lib64/ruby/? The "local" part is > > throwing off my package. > > The new ruby package changed the rpm macros before the new packaging > guidelines for ruby were (they're still pending but hopefully will be > approved by next Wed) approved. So I believe they want to change from > %ruby_site* to %ruby_vendor*. This portion of the new Guidelines isn't > controversial to the FPC (FPC did implicitly assume that this change was > arrived at via the whole Ruby SIG rather than just the ruby pakage > maintainer, though -- if this is in error, please let us know) so it's not > ideal but seems reasonable to update your package to use > %ruby_vendorarchdir now that they've pushed out a package that uses these > new macros. Normally you have to define that in your spec file. What's the magic text to define that? Also, I like keep my spec file as identical as possible between all Fedora releases. Would I have any problem on F16/15 using the same macro? -Steve -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel