Ruby 1.9.3 spec file

Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip at kanarip.com
Sun Oct 2 15:45:20 UTC 2011


Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have recently pushed my ongoing work on packaging Ruby 1.9.3 for F17
> to my github [1]. Pleas don't hesitate and contact me if you have any
> comments. Pull requests are welcomed.
> 

Vit and myself have discussed the topic of pushing Ruby 1.9.3 in F-17, and for 
my interest is currently limited to Puppet continuing to work, we have decided 
Vit pushes out his Ruby 1.9.3 builds to a Fedora People repository, so that I 
can test - and obviously you can as well. We may even request a ruby-193 
rawhide koji build tag/target for this with Release Engineering - or in other 
words, Dennis Gilmore.

The remainder of things to do with regards to Ruby 1.9.3 in F-17, if all 
builds and tests are successful, was considered to be -and Vit, please correct 
me if I'm wrong;

- Rebuild all other packages dependent on Ruby against

  "Requires: ruby(abi) = %{ruby_abi}"

  The ruby_abi macro would (initially) be provided by the ruby package in 
/etc/rpm/macros.ruby, set to the Major.Minor release of the Ruby version the 
ruby package carries,

- Update the packaging guidelines to mandate the use of "Requires: ruby(abi) = 
%{ruby_abi}" - this greatly enhances our abilities to rebuild stacks for 
different versions of Ruby.

Aside from that, we have looked over the .spec file for Ruby 1.9.3 - based on 
my .spec originally for 1.9.1, IIRC, and have decided that the use of 
/usr/{lib{,64},share}/ruby and /usr/local/{lib{,64},share}/ruby was the best 
approach.

We've also (shortly) deliberated on the other topics in the agenda Vit had 
sent out, but I'm going to let Vit report on those. I think the path to Ruby 
1.9.3 is a topic in itself and can be / has to be pursued regardless of the 
outcome of other topics.

I would like to propose, however, that in preparation of FUDCon in Blacksburg, 
which I'll be attending, Vit and myself -and others interested and able 
physically or digitally- get together in Brno for a couple of days (we would 
call this a FAD), to fully flesh out any of the remaining details in terms of 
processes (like packaging guidelines), potential problems, and further ideas.

-- 

Kind regards,

-- kanarip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/attachments/20111002/7f8beeac/attachment.html 


More information about the ruby-sig mailing list