Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514931 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-02 12:26:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > * ruby(abi) > > - All ruby related packages must have "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8" > > ( And I usually recomend to add also "BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = 1.8" > > for consistency ). > > Well, that doesn't work on EPEL 5, because there's no ruby(abi) provided. > > $ rpm -q ruby > ruby-1.8.5-5.el5_3.7 > $ > > $ rpm -q --provides ruby | grep "ruby(abi)" > $ Well, $ rpm -qp --provides ruby-libs-1.8.5-5.el5_2.6.i386.rpm 2>/dev/null | grep abi ruby(abi) = 1.8 > > * ImageMagick Dependency > > - Due to bug 500565 (i.e due to the function > > static void test_Magick_version(void) in ext/RMagick/rmmain.c), > > when ruby-RMagick is rebuilt with ImageMagick 6.2.8.0, RMagick > > will require ImageMagick 6.2.8.X > > > > ( i.e. even if the soname of the library in ImageMagick won't change > > between 6.2.8.X and 6.2.9.Y, RMagick rebuilt with ImageMagick > > 6.2.8.X won't work with ImageMagick 6.2.9.Y (by default) ). > > Well, ImageMagick is from RHEL thus never will get incompatible upgraded and > there never will be a version upgrade, just security backports. If ImageMagick > would get upgraded on RHEL, that would anyway break many things. I can add a > hard dependency to "ImageMagick = 6.2.8.0", if that makes you happy. Next RHEL > will anyway need ruby-RMagick 2.x. Well, actually I don't know well about RHEL's policy (I don't have RHEL or CentOS), however for this I will leave it to you. > > > * htmldoc > > - Would you explain why you pass "--disable-htmldoc" to configure? > > ( By the way it seems that creating html documents also fixes > > shebangs automatically ) > > ! By the way as far as I am correct "BR: libwmf" is needed when creating > > html documents, would you check that? > > Building documentation fails, that verdana.ttf or arial.ttf is required but > not available on the system. It's looking for /usr/share/fonts/defaults/ > TrueType/<fontname>, if I remember the path correctly. Nothing at Fedora is > seemingly providing that. Ah, actually this is a bug in RHEL ImageMagick (6.2.8.0-4.el5_1.1), /usr/lib/ImageMagick-6.2.8/config/type.xml contains <include file="type-windows.xml" /> , this is the culprit. (I just remembered that with Fedora 7 or 8 ImageMagick ruby-RMagick htmldoc didn't build due to the same reason...) Perhaps RHEL won't update ImageMagick due to this reason, so for now I will accept --without-htmldoc > > > * configure v.s. setup.rb > > - Well, I think if "configure -> make" is used to compile RMagick, > > "make install" or so should be used to install files. > > > > If you use "ruby setup.rb install", perhaps "ruby setup.rb config/setup" > > or so is preferable instead of "configure -> make". > > Maybe I did something wrong, but that way I was not able to build the package. > There's a *.h.in and another *.in for example which only gets handled by the > ./configure, otherwise the build poorly failed for me. Okay. Please add ruby(abi) dependency. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This package (ruby-RMagick) for EL-5 is approved by mtasaka ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review