Heads up: Ruby 1.9.3 landed in Rawhide

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

Hi all,
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.

-- 
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.

[Darryl L. Pierce]

On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>  Hi all,
>  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. 
Is it available in rawhide? I'm not seeing it anywhere.

-- 
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 7.2.2012 16:33, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
>  On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 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.
>  Is it available in rawhide? I'm not seeing it anywhere.
>
>
>  
Yes, it is.

However, if you are using mock, it might take some time to propagate 
into mirrors. If this is the case, then please try to enable the "local" 
repository in your mock config.


Vit

[Jon Ciesla]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 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.
>
>  Is it available in rawhide? I'm not seeing it anywhere. 
It is, in fact I got a broken dep email for clearsilver.  I'm trying
to troubleshoot and was going to rebuild and install ruby-1.9.3.0-7 on
my test f16 box, but one of the tests fails:

 29) Failure:
test_run_skip_verbose(TestMiniTestUnit)
[/home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/ruby-1.9.3-p0/test/minitest/test_minitest_unit.rb:392]:
--- expected
+++ actual
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@

 # Running tests:

-ATestCase#test_skip = 0.00 s = S
+ATestCase#test_skip = 0.01 s = S
 ATestCase#test_something = 0.00 s = .


Suggestions?

-J

>  --
>  Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
>  Delivering value year after year.
>  Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
>  http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
>
>
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 


-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 7.2.2012 16:37, Jon Ciesla napsal(a):
>  On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Darryl L.
> Pierce<dpierce(a)redhat.com>  wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> 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.
> > Is it available in rawhide? I'm not seeing it anywhere.
>  It is, in fact I got a broken dep email for clearsilver.  I'm trying
>  to troubleshoot and was going to rebuild and install ruby-1.9.3.0-7 on
>  my test f16 box, but one of the tests fails:
>
>    29) Failure:
>  test_run_skip_verbose(TestMiniTestUnit)
>  [/home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/ruby-1.9.3-p0/test/minitest/test_minitest_unit.rb:392]:
>  --- expected
>  +++ actual
>  @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>
>    # Running tests:
>
>  -ATestCase#test_skip = 0.00 s = S
>  +ATestCase#test_skip = 0.01 s = S
>    ATestCase#test_something = 0.00 s = .
>
>
>  Suggestions?
>
>  -J 
Jon,

Could you please provide us your srpm?


Vit

[Jon Ciesla]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Dne 7.2.2012 16:37, Jon Ciesla napsal(a):
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Darryl L. Pierce&lt;dpierce(a)redhat.com&gt;
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Is it available in rawhide? I'm not seeing it anywhere.
> >
> > It is, in fact I got a broken dep email for clearsilver.  I'm trying
> > to troubleshoot and was going to rebuild and install ruby-1.9.3.0-7 on
> > my test f16 box, but one of the tests fails:
> >
> >  29) Failure:
> > test_run_skip_verbose(TestMiniTestUnit)
> >
> > [/home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/ruby-1.9.3-p0/test/minitest/test_minitest_unit.rb:392]:
> > --- expected
> > +++ actual
> > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> >
> >  # Running tests:
> >
> > -ATestCase#test_skip = 0.00 s = S
> > +ATestCase#test_skip = 0.01 s = S
> >  ATestCase#test_something = 0.00 s = .
> >
> >
> > Suggestions?
> >
> > -J
>
>
>  Jon,
>
>  Could you please provide us your srpm? 
The one in koji.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=296249

http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/ruby/1.9.3.0/7.fc17/src/ruby-1...

-J

>  Vit
>
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 


-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 7.2.2012 17:27, Jon Ciesla napsal(a):
>  On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vít
> Ondruch<vondruch(a)redhat.com>  wrote:
> > Dne 7.2.2012 16:37, Jon Ciesla napsal(a):
> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Darryl L. Pierce<dpierce(a)redhat.com>
> >>   wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>> 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.
> >>> Is it available in rawhide? I'm not seeing it anywhere.
> >> It is, in fact I got a broken dep email for clearsilver.  I'm trying
> >> to troubleshoot and was going to rebuild and install ruby-1.9.3.0-7 on
> >> my test f16 box, but one of the tests fails:
> >>
> >>   29) Failure:
> >> test_run_skip_verbose(TestMiniTestUnit)
> >>
> >>
> [/home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/ruby-1.9.3-p0/test/minitest/test_minitest_unit.rb:392]:
> >> --- expected
> >> +++ actual
> >> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> >>
> >>   # Running tests:
> >>
> >> -ATestCase#test_skip = 0.00 s = S
> >> +ATestCase#test_skip = 0.01 s = S
> >>   ATestCase#test_something = 0.00 s = .
> >>
> >>
> >> Suggestions?
> >>
> >> -J
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Could you please provide us your srpm?
>  The one in koji.
>
>  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=296249
>
>
> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/ruby/1.9.3.0/7.fc17/src/ruby-1...
>
>  -J
>
> > Vit
> >
> > --
> > devel mailing list
> > devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>  
I tried it locally and cannot reproduce your issue. Both builds for i386 
and x86_64 succeeded. I started also scratch build for F16 in Koji [1], 
lets see what happens.


BTW for clearsilver you'll need to apply some patch for Ruby 1.9 [2].

Vit




[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3769574
[2] https://gist.github.com/585817

[Jon Ciesla]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Dne 7.2.2012 17:27, Jon Ciesla napsal(a):
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vít Ondruch&lt;vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt;  wrote:
> >>
> >> Dne 7.2.2012 16:37, Jon Ciesla napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Darryl L. Pierce&lt;dpierce(a)redhat.com&gt;
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it available in rawhide? I'm not seeing it anywhere.
> >>>
> >>> It is, in fact I got a broken dep email for clearsilver.  I'm trying
> >>> to troubleshoot and was going to rebuild and install ruby-1.9.3.0-7 on
> >>> my test f16 box, but one of the tests fails:
> >>>
> >>>  29) Failure:
> >>> test_run_skip_verbose(TestMiniTestUnit)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> [/home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILD/ruby-1.9.3-p0/test/minitest/test_minitest_unit.rb:392]:
> >>> --- expected
> >>> +++ actual
> >>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> >>>
> >>>  # Running tests:
> >>>
> >>> -ATestCase#test_skip = 0.00 s = S
> >>> +ATestCase#test_skip = 0.01 s = S
> >>>  ATestCase#test_something = 0.00 s = .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Suggestions?
> >>>
> >>> -J
> >>
> >>
> >> Jon,
> >>
> >> Could you please provide us your srpm?
> >
> > The one in koji.
> >
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=296249
> >
> >
> >
> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/ruby/1.9.3.0/7.fc17/src/ruby-1...
> >
> > -J
> >
> >> Vit
> >>
> >> --
> >> devel mailing list
> >> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> >
> >
>
>  I tried it locally and cannot reproduce your issue. Both builds for i386 and
>  x86_64 succeeded. I started also scratch build for F16 in Koji [1], lets see
>  what happens. 
I retried and it worked.  Weird.

>  BTW for clearsilver you'll need to apply some patch for Ruby 1.9 [2]. 
That's what got me building in the first place.  Thanks!

-J
>  Vit
>
>
>
>
>  [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3769574
>  [2] https://gist.github.com/585817
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel 


-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Steve Grubb]

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.

-Steve

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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.

-Toshio

[Steve Grubb]

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?

-Steve

[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

[Steve Grubb]

On Saturday, February 11, 2012 12:57:40 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  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 
I guess I could just disable building ruby bindings and no longer support that 
language. Would anyone miss libprelude bindings for ruby? Not sure if there is a 
fedora process for dropping support of a language,

-Steve

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 11.2.2012 16:42, Steve Grubb napsal(a):
>  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.
>
>  -Steve 
Hi Steve,

Actually we rebuild almost all packages, which we were rebuildable. 
Unfortunately, libprelude is one of the packages which is on our 
"blacklist". It seems that the Ruby binding needs some love, i.e. 
adaptation for Ruby 1.9.3. Also, it seems that the upstream is dead. Is 
that right? You'll know it better I hope ;)

Regarding the needed changes, this [2] is libprellude git repo with 
modified .spec file, however, I am afraid that it is not enough. The 
magic macros you have discussed later with Toshio are defined in 
/etc/rpm/ruby.macros and provided by ruby-devel package, so you don't 
have to define them manually in each package anymore.


Vit

[1] 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2011-December/000729.html
[2] http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/ruby-git-repos/libprelude.tar.gz