[Bug 1114146] Review Request: rubygem-ffi-yajl - Ruby FFI wrapper around YAJL 2.x

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146



--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
* Patches are missing comments
  - Your .spec file contains 4 patches. It would be nice to comment them what
    they are good for, why they are not upstream. For example, Patch3 seems to
    be fixing compatibility with RSpec 2.x, while upstream is using RSpec 3.x
    already.

* libyaml2 gem dependency
  - I have to say, I am disappointed with this way of bundling, although not
    sure if you can do something about it, since this is upstream issue, but I
    must point this out.

    I'd call your patches substantial. The biggest change is that you
completely
    drop the dependency on libyajl2, that means if somebody is sharing
    Gemfile.lock (and we can put aside if this is good idea or not), their
    dependencies will differ for Fedoras version of ffi-libyaml in comparison
to
    original gems.

    This very much reminds me the current situation with therubyracer.
    therubyracer is currently more or less unupdatable, since it depends on v8
    gem, where the v8 gem version corresponds with the version of shipped v8
    library. Unfortunately, our system v8 has different version. So there is
not
    possible to unbundle the v8 without breaking what the version is
    specifying. This is not yet case of the libyaml2, but I won't be
    surprised if somebody will realize soon, that it could have the same
    version as the shipped lirary.

    If the bundling is necessary, I'd rather see the approach Psych is using
for
    example, i.e. it bundles the psych library directly inside the gem, if
    system one is not available. This way of bundling is quite easy to remove.

So to say, I'll release this review to somebody else, since I cannot sign
myself under this.

With regards to gem.build_complete, yes, you have to keep it. It is in current
guidelines [1] (last line of example), although the guidelines could get
updated in the meantime. This is RubyGems requirement, otherwise they tries to
recompile the binary extension. Packaging guidelines just follows.



[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Building_gems

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]