On Saturday, February 11, 2012 12:57:40 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41:48AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > > 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? > > I haven't looked into the rawhide packages where this is implemented (and > the macro files themselves weren't posted to the ticket where the FPC is > reviewing the new Guidelines) so I can't tell you 100% for sure. > > I'm guessing that the answer is going to be no. But you may be able to > work around that with: > > %{!?ruby_vendorlibdir: %global ruby_vendorlibdir DEFINITIONHERE} > > Note that I've just been reviewing the latest additions to the draft > guidelines and some of the information there may lead to an even more major > overhaul of the guidelines before they go final. > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/134 I guess I could just disable building ruby bindings and no longer support that language. Would anyone miss libprelude bindings for ruby? Not sure if there is a fedora process for dropping support of a language, -Steve -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
