On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > There are no problem with approach #3, since nobody uses it. I am not gonna > to convert any of my packages just to prove you that you are wrong. Prove me > that you are right, that rubygem-idn is the only problematic package and > I'll believe you. > Since nobody else was willing to check how well #3 works, I've done so by converting several packages that I picked at random from the first packagedb page for packages beginning with rubygem-* (and deltacloud-core which is given as an example in the guidelines so I needed to make sure it worked): http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/ The common case is to add three lines, modify two others, and move what gets done in %build vs %prep. I had to further modify one package's spec file which had a find that was catching directories when it should only be operating on files (added -type f). Thanks to macros for gem_name and other package info, these changes don't even vary from package to package. The one package that had patches applied went from 11 lines of commands down to 9. Reorganizing that section also made it obvious that the unittests were being installed in the binary rpm under the old code, a problem that the new code did not share. The application example also became simpler by two lines. -Toshio -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
