Fwd: Re: ruby 1.8.7.x for rawhide

[Jim Meyering]

Jim Meyering wrote:

> Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>
>> On 06/22/2010 01:26 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> David Lutterkort wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 12:49 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I added this patch to my specfile as well, bumped the release, and
>>>>>> updated the changelog to include your feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>
>>>>> rpmlint complains about this conditionally-applied patch:
>>>>>
>>>>>    %ifarch ppc64 s390x sparc64 x86_64
>>>>>    %patch23 -p1
>>>>>    %endif
>>>>>
>>>>> That patch (ruby-1.8.7-multilib.patch) is small enough that
>>>>> I'll include it here, for reference:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- ruby-1.8.7-p249/mkconfig.rb.orig    2010-06-15 11:30:44.000000000 -0400
>>>>> +++ ruby-1.8.7-p249/mkconfig.rb 2010-06-15 11:31:01.000000000 -0400
>>>>> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
>>>>>
>>>>>   drive = File::PATH_SEPARATOR == ';'
>>>>>
>>>>> -prefix = '/lib/ruby/' + RUBY_VERSION.sub(/\.\d+$/, '') + '/' + RUBY_PLATFORM
>>>>> +prefix = '/lib64/ruby/' + RUBY_VERSION.sub(/\.\d+$/, '') + '/' + RUBY_PLATFORM
>>>>>
>>>>> It is easy to perform the same task using an unconditional patch,
>>>>> so I wrote this replacement:
>>>>>
>>>> Couldn't we just get the right value from the environment ? I haven't
>>>> looked if it's already in one of the standard env vars that rpmbuild
>>>> sets up, but if bad comes to worst, couldn't we just do 'export
>>>> LIB_PREFIX=%{_libdir}' in the spec file and then
>>>>
>>>>          prefix = ENV["LIB_PREFIX"].gsub(%r{^/usr}, "") + "/ruby" + RUBY_VERSION.sub(/\.\d+$/, '') + '/' + RUBY_PLATFORM
>>>>
>>> Using an rpm variable like that is more maintainable than enumerating
>>> 64-bit architectures or even using a regexp like /64$/ like I did.
>>> However, while it would work when building via rpm tools, if someone
>>> ever builds manually, they would have to know to set that envvar --
>>> too easily missed or forgotten.
>>
>> How would anyone go about building this manually with this change
>> included? AFAIK since this change is only in the patch that is pulled
>> in via the spec / rpmbuild, the only way that it will appear is if
>> someone is building ruby using the rpm tools.
>
> Hi Mo,
>
> I've seen it documented to run e.g., "make prep" for a project and
> then cd into the directory that creates and "develop" (i.e., run make, etc.).
> This is not a hypothetical case.
>
>>> However, we can do something similar that might be more robust:
>>> run something like this from the spec file:
>>>
>>>      sed -i 's,/lib/ruby/,%{_whatever}/,' .../mkconfig.rb || exit 1
>>>
>>> But that is fragile in its own way.  If mkconfig.rb changes, the sed
>>> regexp may fail to match or it may match in some new place, introducing
>>> an unwanted change.
>>
>> Agreed, this global sed will most likely cause headaches in the future.
>
> If you're so concerned, and don't like the insurance below,
> it's easy to make the sed regexp more specific.  The line it's
> modifying is long and unlikely to change frequently.
>
>>> We could mitigate that risk by adding tests
>>> that would fail if our preconditions stop being met:
>>>
>>>      # Ensure that the "sed" command below does the right thing.
>>>      grep 'prefix = ./lib/ruby/. + RUBY_VERSION.sub' || exit 1
>>>      test $(grep -c '/lib/ruby/') = 1 || exit 1
>>>
>>>      # Use /lib64/ruby/ on a 64-bit system.
>>>      sed -i 's,/lib/ruby/,%{_whatever}/,' mkconfig.rb || exit 1
>>
>> This will also lead to more maintenance as if either of those
>> conditions become true and cause rpmbuild to exit, we will need to
>> figure out an alternative solution to this problem.
>
> That's the whole idea of this approach.
> In the unlikely event that something important changes,
> you absolutely do want to be forced to get involved.
> You'd get an rpmbuild failure that has to be investigated,
> rather than a silent change in behavior that someone would have
> to debug farther away from the source.
>
> It is for the same reason that patches are applied using the
> most strict setting, allowing no "fuzz".

FYI, I've confirmed that this works for me:

commit 8cc2823aec419d282dfe3a1b62ed46e7453adbed
Author: Jim Meyering <meyering at redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Jun 22 22:15:59 2010 +0200

    remove mkconfig.rb-modifying patch(#23) altogether

    - Remove patch 23 altogether.  Replace it with mkconfig.rb-modifying
      code in %install.
    - ruby-multilib.patch: Remove file.

diff --git a/RHEL-6/ruby.spec b/RHEL-6/ruby.spec
index 00e7c50..ad0c7db 100644
--- a/RHEL-6/ruby.spec
+++ b/RHEL-6/ruby.spec
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@

 Name:		ruby
 Version:	%{rubyver}%{?dotpatchlevel}
-Release:	2%{?dist}
+Release:	3%{?dist}
 License:	Ruby or GPLv2
 URL:		http://www.ruby-lang.org/
 BuildRoot:	%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
@@ -53,8 +53,6 @@ Source4:	irb.1
 # http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2010-May/000096.html
 Source100:	ruby-1.8-rev%{tk_using_svn_number}_trunk-ext_tk.tar.gz

-# Patch23 is Fedora specific
-Patch23:	ruby-multilib.patch
 # Patch27 is not in the upstream VCS.
 # This patch, while not technically required in the context of Rails,
 # does seem like a useful addition: improved safety/compatibility:
@@ -193,7 +191,6 @@ pushd %{name}-%{arcver}
   find tk -type d -name \.svn | sort -r | xargs rm -rf
 )

-%patch23 -p1
 %patch27 -p0
 %patch29 -p1
 %patch30 -p1
@@ -360,6 +357,24 @@ popd
 # done
 cd ..

+# Change /lib/ruby/ to /lib64/ruby/ on a 64-bit system
+if test %{_lib} != lib; then
+  d=$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{arcver}
+  t=$d/mkconfig.rb
+  # ruby-1.9.2 has this line in tool/mkconfig.rb:
+  # prefix = "/lib/ruby/#{version}/#{arch}"
+  # while ruby-1.8.7 has this in mkconfig.rb:
+  # prefix = '/lib/ruby/' + RUBY_VERSION.sub(/\.\d+$/, '') + '/' + RUBY_PLATFORM
+  # The following covers both:
+  test -f $t || t=$d/tool/mkconfig.rb
+  if grep '^prefix = ./lib/ruby/' $t; then
+      sed -i 's,^\(prefix = .\)/lib/ruby/,\1%{_lib}/ruby/,' $t || exit 1
+  else
+      echo "unexpected content in $t"
+      exit 1
+  fi
+fi
+
 # installing binaries ...
 make -C $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{arcver} DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install

@@ -546,6 +561,11 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 %doc tmp-ruby-docs/ruby-libs/*

 %changelog
+* Tue Jun 22 2010 Jim Meyering <meyering at redhat.com> - 1.8.7.249-3
+- Remove patch 23 altogether.  Replace it with mkconfig.rb-modifying
+  code in %install.
+- ruby-multilib.patch: Remove file.
+
 * Tue Jun 22 2010 Jim Meyering <meyering at redhat.com> - 1.8.7.249-2
 - Integrate addition of patch101 by Mohammed Morsi.  This fixes
   the segv-inducing marshaling bug affecting rails-3.0.0.

The above isn't quite accurate.
You need this additional change (to the %changelog text!)
in order to avoid a cryptic "Package already exists: %package debuginfo"
error from rpmbuild:

-  code in %install.
+  code in "install", above.

I guess that's rpmbuild's way of saying you must not refer
to "%install" in a %changelog entry.