On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 04:06:20PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 29.2.2012 15:23, Stanislav Ochotnicky napsal(a):
>Quoting Emanuel Rietveld (2012-02-29 12:18:57)
>>On 02/29/2012 11:50 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>>Le Mar 28 février 2012 16:29, Vít Ondruch a écrit :
>>>
>>>>Pleas do not be mistaken. We are not speaking about building gems from
>>>>sources. We are speaking about building from package manager output,
>>>>i.e. build gem from gem.
>>>So we are shipping stuff, which is not build from other stuff we ship, but
>>>from magic upstream binaries? Not nice at all.
>>>
>>It is worth noting that .java files compiled into .class files or .jar
>>files is not the same thing as .rb files. .rb files are not compiled*
>However I have seen gem files containing bundled jar files. Not sure if
>gem unpacking actually helps things, but it might make it more easy to
>spot perhaps. There as easy ways to detect such bundling though, so not
>a problem. Just though I'd mention this use case
>
Yes, there are gems with bundled jar files. There are also gems which
might carry other binaries. For this case, there apply general
Fedora's "No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries" and
"Duplication of system libraries" policies, nothing specific is
needed for Ruby.
Please note that we proposed to do "gem install" in %prep section
which "unpacks" the gem content among other things, so you can spot
such files easily.
Actually, Stanislav has a good point. gem install unpacks, builds,
and installs a gem. So when I do a gem install and then do a find . -name
'*.so' or find . -name '*.jar' I don't know right off the bat whether
the
files listed were bundled or produced by "gem install". I don't know
whether all of the *.so's were built from source or if there was
a precompiled object file in the gem that was included. So how do you
inspect the results of gem install to determine that there is nothing
bundled?
-Toshio