Heads up: Ruby 1.9.3 landed in Rawhide

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41:48AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:32:09 AM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:42:53AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 06, 2012 09:31:50 AM Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > > > Ruby 1.9.3 has finally made it into Rawhide, there are still few more
> > > > packages that need to be built, but otherwise the transitions was
> > > > successful.
> > > > 
> > > > Please note again, that soname has been bumped to 1.9.1 and license is
> > > > changed from GPLv2 or Ruby to BSD or Ruby, as already announced.
> > > 
> > > Would have been nice if this project had kicked off rebuilds like other
> > > soname bump projects do. :)  I'm finding a problem with my package.
> > > According to the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
> > > guidelines, I should be doing the ruby_sitearch macro. But this seems to
> > > point to /usr/local/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/ and I would have expected it
> > > to be somewhere else like /usr/lib64/ruby/...
> > > 
> > > Did this really change to /usr/local/lib64/ruby/? The "local" part is
> > > throwing off my package.
> > 
> > The new ruby package changed the rpm macros before the new packaging
> > guidelines for ruby were (they're still pending but hopefully will be
> > approved by next Wed) approved.  So I believe they want to change from
> > %ruby_site* to %ruby_vendor*.  This portion of the new Guidelines isn't
> > controversial to the FPC (FPC did implicitly assume that this change was
> > arrived at via the whole Ruby SIG rather than just the ruby pakage
> > maintainer, though -- if this is in error, please let us know) so it's not
> > ideal but seems reasonable to update your package to use
> > %ruby_vendorarchdir now that they've pushed out a package that uses these
> > new macros.
> 
> Normally you have to define that in your spec file. What's the magic text to define 
> that? Also, I like keep my spec file as identical as possible between all Fedora 
> releases. Would I have any problem on F16/15 using the same macro?
> 
I haven't looked into the rawhide packages where this is implemented (and
the macro files themselves weren't posted to the ticket where the FPC is
reviewing the new Guidelines) so I can't tell you 100% for sure.

I'm guessing that the answer is going to be no.  But you may be able to
work around that with:

%{!?ruby_vendorlibdir: %global ruby_vendorlibdir DEFINITIONHERE}

Note that I've just been reviewing the latest additions to the draft
guidelines and some of the information there may lead to an even more major
overhaul of the guidelines before they go final.

https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/134

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120211/4c97f4cc/attachment.sig>