Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894482 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #10 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hey Troy, the specfile really seems to be strange, to say the least. Comments for the first condition that Vit has mentioned: - %scl shouldn't actually be defined in the specfile, it should be left to ruby193-build to be present in minimal buildroot. - Defining %scl_prefix is wrong. If ruby193-build is in minimal buildroot, it will draw in scl-utils-build and %scl_prefix will be defined. You really shouldn't hack these things like that. The another condition: - Please don't do that. Again, that is supposed to be solved by those packages being/not being present in the minimal buildroot. The general idea of SCLs is that you can build the same SRPM and get SCL or non-SCL RPMs, based on the buildroot you use. By hardcoding the rhel conditionals, you break this. Some more comments: - %{?scl:%scl_prefix} in Requires and BuildRequires can be shortened to %{?scl_prefix} - The two Requires without %{?scl:%scl_prefix} seem to be suspicious. I'd say that if you build this for ruby193 SCL, this gem won't be able to use them, as they won't be in GEM_PATH (because they're not SCL). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WmHZpiiDuK&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review