Unable to Patch C extension gems - What approach?

[Shawn Starr]

On Thursday, February 09, 2012 01:57:34 PM Shawn wrote:
> Thanks Vit, seems like a good approach to me. I'll look at your SRPM today
> and see what the failure is.
> 
Hello, 

This had a cascading effect.. rubygem-idn is now fixed, tests pass, although I 
have to do some force_encoding() to get the tests to work.

Push to f17-candidate and rawhide.

Because rubygem-addressable (pending review) uses GNU idn directly, this also 
broke with Ruby 1.9.3, I have fixed this also (see patch in SRPM).

> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch at redhat.com>
> To: "ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org" <ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: February 9, 2012 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Unable to Patch C extension gems - What approach?
> 
> Shawn,
> 
> I spent some time with rubygem-idn and here [1] is the srpm I came up
> with. Unfortunately, the test suite fails, probably due to changes in
> encoding in Ruby 1.9. I would appreciate if you can continue where I
> ended and make the test suite pass.
> 
> I also worked a bit on the packaging guidelines [2], and I would
> appreciate any feedback.
> 
> 
> Vit
> 
> [1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-idn-0.0.2-4.fc18.src.rpm
> [2]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby#Binary_Extension_Fails_t
> o_Build
> Dne 9.2.2012 09:05, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > Dne 9.2.2012 02:14, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
> >>> This is a problem that Vit has been trying to solve some time ago,
> >>> here is
> >>> the discussion with suggested steps (not optimal, but there is
> >>> probably no
> >>> better way, yet) [1].
> >> 
> >> This is going be a problem. Do we have any official approach? I would
> >> rather
> >> not repackage the gem manually, this is a serious problem for me
> >> right now.
> > 
> > Actually you are the first lucky one who needs this. After rebuilding
> > most of the packages we really did not meet other gem which needs this
> > treatment. There will be no other/better way then the one described in
> > link posted by bkabrda.
> > 
> > However, as we need some good example how to do it for guidelines and
> > FPC, I'll take a look at this case. Do you have already patch which
> > fixes the gem? Are you doing to use this one [1]?
> > 
> > Vit
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/mihu/idn
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig