Dne 29.2.2012 12:43, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
Ok, I'll give you 3 examples: = Old guidelines, used from the time RubyGems were packaged for Fedora = %prep %build %install mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} \ --force %{SOURCE0} = What we are proposing = %prep %setup -q -c -T mkdir -p .%{gem_dir} gem install --local --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \ --force %{SOURCE0} %build %install mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \ %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/ = What FPC is proposing = %prep %setup -q -c -T pushd .. gem unpack %{SOURCE0} pushd %{gem_name}-%{version} gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby> %{gem_name}.gemspec gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec popd popd %build mkdir -p ./%{gem_dir} gem install --local --install-dir ./%{gem_dir} \ --force ../%{gem_name}-%{version}/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem %install mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \ %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/ All three versions provide the same output, unless I did some mistake, since I did not tested it (actually the middle one was taken directly from rubygem-POpen4.spec). So which version you prefer? Please note that the "gem install" will always "unpack" the gem with some additional, for our case unimportant, steps. We do not distribute the .gem file anywhere.Alternatively we can go with a hybrid of solutions 2 and 3 (your and FPC's proposals) where the 'gem unpack' and 'gem spec' steps are optional.
Yes, that was always part of the proposal. Apply the 3rd step only if necessary.
Vit
The majority of gems do not need an additional modification or patching to be converted into a RPM. Yes these steps bring things more inline w/ other packages, but at the expense of unnecessary additional work. If the solution is to suggest gem unpack / gem spec is used while allowing for it to be omitted (still need to determine if gem install should still be run in the %build or %install sections), package maintainers will have a bit more flexibility to run the steps necessary to build their package w/out any additional work, while at the same time still being more compliant and in-line w/ other Fedora practices. Thoughts? As a side node, if at all possible, please make sure to cc' both lists (packaging and ruby-sig) on replies as this discussion is relevant to both communities. Noticed alot of discussion only on the packaging list meaning the Fedora ruby community is missing out on alot of this. Appreciate it, -Mo
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
