Ruby 2.0
by Vít Ondruch
Hi,
Just for your information, I have pushed ruby-2.0 branch into the Ruby's
git repo. So if you like test the latest Ruby, you need to get the
latest HEAD tarball, which could be prepared using:
$ cd /path/to/your/ruby/sources
$ ./tool/make-snapshot tmp
Note that you have to have available subversion and bison on your
system. Also note that the content of tarball is needed to be repacked,
that the Ruby sources will be stored in "ruby-2.0.0-p0" folder (I know,
it is annoyance, but you can fix the spec and send me a patch ;). Also
note that I currently keep the ruby_abi at 1.9.1, while the official
release will have 2.0.0 probably. This should allow you to use Fedora's
gems without rebuild. Any comments/patches are appreciated.
Vit
[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=ruby.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/ruby...
11 years
Updating cucumber
by Bohuslav Kabrda
Hi guys,
I would like to ask anyone of you, who has the ACLs to rubygem-cucumber, to update it to the latest upstream. I need it for a new gem aruba, which we need to run tests for rubygem-factory_girl_rails. I have filled a bugzilla on this [1], but Jeroen is not responding and I saw that there is plenty of you having the ACLs, so could someone please do it? :)
Thanks a lot.
--
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797206
11 years, 7 months
New guidelines discussion on next FPC meeting
by Bohuslav Kabrda
One more email from me:
I don't know if you have been following the discussion about the new Ruby Guidelines at the fpc ticket [1] or at the packaging list (mainly, see last 3 comments, which summarize current state), but this week (wednesday, 17:00 UTC), the fpc is going to finish the draft, vote on it and close it. Please, if anyone of you has something to add, write it to the ticket or come to the meeting, I myself am going to be there to discuss the remaining things.
This is really the last chance to alter something, so I would highly appreciate if more of us could come to the meeting or at least support our opinions at the ticket.
We've been trying hard to carry through as much of our draft as we could, together with Vit (who is now enjoying a well deserved vacation). I hope you will find our opinions on the fpc changes reasonable and will support us. (And if you don't find our opinions reasonable, there is still time to say so, at least.)
Thanks a lot!
--
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/134
11 years, 8 months
ruby-dbus status
by "Guillermo Gómez S."
Im working on a little ruby dbus project and i noticed our version is
kind of old now.
f16 repoquery info
Name : ruby-dbus
Version : 0.3.0
Release : 2.fc15
URL : http://trac.luon.net/ruby-dbus/
According that site the last version available is 0.7.0 and its
available as a gem from rubygems.org, can i help and comaintain?
(unleast i can try) Any reason to keep the actual version?
cheers
_- Guillermo -_
11 years, 8 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] New packaging guidelines for Ruby
by Vít Ondruch
Dne 29.2.2012 17:53, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 06:43:14AM -0500, Mo Morsi wrote:
>>> Ok, I'll give you 3 examples:
>>>
>>> = Old guidelines, used from the time RubyGems were packaged for Fedora =
>>>
>>> %prep
>>>
>>> %build
>>>
>>> %install
>>> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
>>> gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} \
>>> --force %{SOURCE0}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> = What we are proposing =
>>>
>>> %prep
>>> %setup -q -c -T
>>> mkdir -p .%{gem_dir}
>>> gem install --local --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \
>>> --force %{SOURCE0}
>>>
>>> %build
>>>
>>> %install
>>> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
>>> cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \
>>> %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> = What FPC is proposing =
>>>
>>> %prep
>>> %setup -q -c -T
>>> pushd ..
>>> gem unpack %{SOURCE0}
>>>
>>> pushd %{gem_name}-%{version}
>>> gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby> %{gem_name}.gemspec
>>>
>>> gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
>>> popd
>>> popd
>>>
>>> %build
>>> mkdir -p ./%{gem_dir}
>>> gem install --local --install-dir ./%{gem_dir} \
>>> --force ../%{gem_name}-%{version}/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem
>>>
>>> %install
>>> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
>>> cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \
>>> %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/
>>>
>>>
>>> All three versions provide the same output, unless I did some mistake,
>>> since I did not tested it (actually the middle one was taken directly
>>> from rubygem-POpen4.spec). So which version you prefer? Please note
>>> that the "gem install" will always "unpack" the gem with some
>>> additional, for our case unimportant, steps. We do not distribute the
>>> .gem file anywhere.
>> Alternatively we can go with a hybrid of solutions 2 and 3 (your and
>> FPC's proposals) where the 'gem unpack' and 'gem spec' steps are optional.
>>
> As Vit points out, there is no way to implement #2 alone -- it must be
> combined with some form of #3 otherwise you just can't patch C Extensions.
> A hybrid approach, though, could debate when you decide to implement #3
> instead of #2. (ie: all patching, or only when patching C extensions?)
>
>> The majority of gems do not need an additional modification or patching
>> to be converted into a RPM. Yes these steps bring things more inline w/
>> other packages, but at the expense of unnecessary additional work.
>>
>> If the solution is to suggest gem unpack / gem spec is used while
>> allowing for it to be omitted (still need to determine if gem install
>> should still be run in the %build or %install sections), package
>> maintainers will have a bit more flexibility to run the steps necessary
>> to build their package w/out any additional work, while at the same time
>> still being more compliant and in-line w/ other Fedora practices.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> I've been thinking about this for a week and also waiting for people to
> bring forth packages that would be broken by it to see if there's any actual
> problems with the strategy. No packages beyond the original one which is
> a bug from upstream has been presented. Without that sort of example, I'm
> going to vote for #3.
>
> #2 is more complex as people have to keep in mind two sets of instructions.
> When a bug fix is needed, it will not be simple to apply it as you'd have to
> change the whole structure of the spec file in order to apply the patch and
> then revert those changes when the patch is no longer needed. The
> temptation for the packager in that situation will be to not apply bug fixes
> until after they've made it into an upstream gem release.
>
> #2 does not fix the problem with rpmbuild --short-circuit.
>
> #3 was compared in the ticket with requiring "Fedora users to always rebuild
> each RPM locally, because there might be sometimes broken dependency or
> other error." This is a wrong comparison. A packager's job is to deal with
> broken dependencies and other errors, not a users. #3 requires packagers to
> deal with these issues, not users.
>
> I'm also seeing the argument made for #2 that it's less work because
> a single command exists to do all the steps. Therefore we should use it.
> This is not a compelling argument because the same can be said of other
> build systems. For most python code, for instance:
>
> %setup -n %{srcname}-%{version}
> python setup.py install --root %{buildroot}
>
> even "make install" is valid under this argument.
>
> #3 is also (barring someone giving us examples where packages are actually
> broken) only a small one-time cost. Changing the rubygem spec files that
> are using the old guidelines to use the new guidelines. As stated earlier,
> the FPC has always known that the Rubygem guidelines needed to be changed
> but was unaware that the time had come when the old guidelines were no
> longer needed (lutter hasn't been on the FPC for years). Since you're
> proposing changes to the guidelines anyway, you can hardly complain about
> a one-time cost. In terms of an ongoing cost, until you show that there's
> a non-bug reason that unpacking the source and rebuilding the gem is wrong,
> there's no extra cost in maintaining this that package maintainers shouldn't
> be responsible for anyhow.
>
>> As a side node, if at all possible, please make sure to cc' both lists
>> (packaging and ruby-sig) on replies as this discussion is relevant to
>> both communities. Noticed alot of discussion only on the packaging list
>> meaning the Fedora ruby community is missing out on alot of this.
>>
> I'll try but you may need to pass my message through the ruby-sig
> moderation queue.
>
> -Toshio
>
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Hi Toshio,
Today, in attempt to find some compromise solution, we tried to "fix"
RubyGems in a way, that would allow the following workflow:
%prep
%setup -q -c -T
mkdir -p .%{gem_dir}
gem install --local --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \
--force \
--skip-build \
%{SOURCE0}
%build
pushd .%{gem_dir}/ext
./configure && make && make install
popd
%install
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \
%{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/
The main differences are the "--skip-build" flag in %prep section and
the "./configure && make && make install" (or some equivalent) in %build
section. In the first moment, it looked promising. Add the
"--skip-build" flag should be easy as conditionally execution the
extension's build [1], i.e. almost one line change. Unfortunately, it
turned out that things are not as easy as they seem on the first look.
First of all, the '"./configure && make && make install" (or some
equivalent)' is tricky, since there are currently 3 supported build
methods by RubyGems
1) Traditional ./configure && make && make install"
2) The most widely used extconf.rb and make combo
3) Rake builder
It shouldn't be hard to support also other make alternatives. So these 3
possibilities complicate the %build section enough. Moreover, if you
look on the implementation of the builders [2], you'll see that the
builders are patching the Makefiles on several places, provide
additional configuration options etc. There is no good place where to
cut-off the build on some lower layer.
In conclusion, this is dead end. The "--skip-build" option doesn't look
promising ATM unless the RubyGems would undergo some significant changes.
Vit
[1]
https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/lib/rubygems/installer.r...
[2] https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/tree/master/lib/rubygems/ext
11 years, 9 months
F17 ruby help request
by Michael Stahnke
I'm a little bogged down at $DAYJOB currently and would love if I
could get any help to resolve some dependency problems due (partially)
to the Ruby 1.9 upgrade in F17.
The following packages are sending me reminders of dependency
resolution issues. If anybody needs access to co-maintain, or fixup,
please let me know. I appreciate any help.
rubygem-gettext_activerecord
rubygem-calendar_date_select
rubygem-httparty
rubygem-crack
rubygem-activeldap
rubygem-linode
stahnma
11 years, 9 months
rubygem-rspec => RSpec 2.8
by Vít Ondruch
Hi everybody,
I have submitted update of rubygem-rspec to RSpec 2.8 for F17 testing
[1]. Please test your packages. From now, it should be possible to use
"BuildRequire: rubygem(rspec)" in your spec files. Once the update gets
propagated into stable, I will update rubygem-rspec-core in F18 and from
that time, all packages which requires rubygem(rspec-core) will be FTBFS
and will need to be updated to require rubygem(rspec). Once all packages
will be updated, the transition will be finished.
Best regards,
Vit
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rspec-2.8.0-1.fc17
11 years, 9 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] New packaging guidelines for Ruby
by Vít Ondruch
Dne 1.3.2012 17:34, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> 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?
You can compare results of "gem unpack" and "gem install" for example.
But there is definitely more ways.
Vit
>
> -Toshio
>
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
11 years, 9 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] New packaging guidelines for Ruby
by Vít Ondruch
Toshio,
This discussion begins to be tiring. I'll go last time through this
topic trying to explain every concern you risen in your answer and I
hope not to be very personal :)
Yes, I agree with you that #3 would be perfect in ideal world, but since
we are not living in ideal world, I prefer #2. Since I am maintaining
more than 80 rubygems out of 290 currently available in Rawhide, since I
work with Ruby almost exclusively for more than 5 years, since the
guidelines draft was gone through review of Ruby-SIG members, I believe
you could respect more this opinion.
Dne 1.3.2012 17:21, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:05:58AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 29.2.2012 17:53, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
>>
>>
>> I've been thinking about this for a week and also waiting for people to
>> bring forth packages that would be broken by it to see if there's any actual
>> problems with the strategy. No packages beyond the original one which is
>> a bug from upstream has been presented. Without that sort of example, I'm
>> going to vote for #3.
>>
>>
>> Well it is hard to bring you some example, because there are non.
>>
> If there are no problems, then there's no reason not to use it.
There are no problem with approach #3, since nobody uses it. I am not
gonna to convert any of my packages just to prove you that you are
wrong. Prove me that you are right, that rubygem-idn is the only
problematic package and I'll believe you.
>
>> There are no
>> experiences with the #3 except with rubygem-idn, and in this case the simple
>> approach described in guidelines fails. Try to remove the following lines from
>> the spec:
>>
>> # Avoid "cert_chain must not be nil" error.
>> sed -i -e "10d" %{gem_name}.gemspec
>>
>> and you'll see what I am talking about. Please do not ignore these custom lines
>> I had to come up with to let the #3 work.
>>
> I have not ignored this. In the ticket, I stated that this looks like an
> upstream bug which, as packagers, it's our job to detect and fix.
> cert_chain is being set to nil by the upstream packaging. This is not
> supported by the current versions of the build tools (rubygems). We update
> so the build script to work with the current version of the tools (and
> hopefully submit the change to upstream).
>
> When gcc updates and code stops working, we patch the upstream code to work
> with the new gcc. When python updates, we patch upstream code of third
> party modules so that they work. There's nothing out of the ordinary with
> this at all.
>
>>
>> #2 is more complex as people have to keep in mind two sets of instructions.
>> When a bug fix is needed, it will not be simple to apply it as you'd have to
>> change the whole structure of the spec file in order to apply the patch and
>> then revert those changes when the patch is no longer needed. The
>> temptation for the packager in that situation will be to not apply bug fixes
>> until after they've made it into an upstream gem release.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it will not be simple to apply changes, therefore we are moving from
>> approach #1 which was valid up until now and proposing the approach #2, which
>> works well for all packages except rubygem-idn
>>
> No. You are proposing approach #2 plus approach #3. So your proposal is
> twice as complex as approach #3 as there's twice as many recipes for
> building rubygems to learn.
You don't have to care about #3 as long as you don't need it. That is
the beauty. You are learning gradually. We agreed that from 290 rubygems
in Fedora you need #3 for one case, yet everybody should know it.
Nobody who comes from Ruby land and want to package his gem for Fedora
knows anything about "gem spec" command. Yes, that is nice that you want
to learn them this command right from beginning, but may be they will go
away, since they would be confused what is going on.
>
>>
>> #2 does not fix the problem with rpmbuild --short-circuit.
>>
>>
>> To be honest, I do not understand what is the point with the --short-circuit.
>> According to documentation "--short-circuit skip straight to specified stage
>> (only for c,i)". I do not know how are you using it, but it implies that you
>> have to do "rpmbuild -bp" to be able to do "rpmbuild -bc --short-circuit". In
>> that case, what does not work for you? What do you want to see in this step if
>> it is empty?
>>
> rpmbuild -bp kernel.spec
> cd kernel-3.0.0
> # edit some source files, making backups w/ extension .myfix
> cd ..
> rpmbuild -bc --short-circuit kernel.spec
> # If failure, edit source some more
> # If success,: gendiff kernel-3.0.0 .myfix> myfix.patch and add it to spec
> # file
Yes, that is good example. I never used it though and will never used it
even if we went with #3.
It is not useful for RubyGems, since I would never build/install the gem
just to try if binary extension builds. I would go to ext dir and fired
"make" (optionally preceded by "ruby extconf.rb"). Never ever "rpmbuild
-bc --shortcircuit".
>
>>
>> #3 was compared in the ticket with requiring "Fedora users to always rebuild
>> each RPM locally, because there might be sometimes broken dependency or
>> other error." This is a wrong comparison. A packager's job is to deal with
>> broken dependencies and other errors, not a users. #3 requires packagers to
>> deal with these issues, not users.
>>
>>
>> You should understand that RubyGems is packaging system and if I am packaging
>> the gem for Fedora, I am user of the packaging system from point of view of
>> RubyGems and I am package maintainer form point of RPM. No need to argue about
>> "packager's job". I just wanted to find something what would give you better
>> feeling what is it about and I gave better, more detailed, example along the
>> lines somewhere in this thread to Rex.
>>
> Yes, you are the user of the upstream build system. But it's not
> upstream's build system that the end users of Fedora see. So the comparison
> that drags in end users is a wrong comparison.
No, it is not. I don't need to know more about RubyGems then necessary
(although it might be beneficial). If you go to package first gem for
Fedora, you are RubyGems user at best and may be you are not RubyGems
user at all. You just want to have something packaged.
>
> Upstream build systems are sometimes easily adaptable to the way that
> software should be packaged in rpms but at other times it is something that
> we have to work around. Take a look at packaging java code where upstream
> has bundled multiple versions of jar files just for their package build as
> an example of something even more invasive than what we're talking about
> here.
Yes, we are unbundling other gems from gems, or even Java packages, but
that is different topic. And it has nothing to do with packaging system.
>
>> I'm also seeing the argument made for #2 that it's less work because
>> a single command exists to do all the steps. Therefore we should use it.
>> This is not a compelling argument because the same can be said of other
>> build systems. For most python code, for instance:
>>
>> %setup -n %{srcname}-%{version}
>> python setup.py install --root %{buildroot}
>>
>> even "make install" is valid under this argument.
>>
>>
>> I am not familiar with python, but you cannot compare "make install" with "gem
>> install". It is something really different. Moreover, "make install" doesn't
>> necessarily mean that the "configure&& make" will be run before.
> The argument I'm seeing is that "Upstream provides me with a command to run
> that upstream has told me to use to build and install the package. It does
> that in one step instead of spread over three steps like I want. I could
> do it a different way using the standard tools and then it will do things in
> the proper three steps but I want to do what upstream has asked instead of
> what is proper." For that argument, the same can indeed be said about "make
> install".
I was forced by you to learn something about packaging of Python
libraries and there is really nothing in common with RubyGems. If you
want to compare gem, you must compare it with RPM, not with *tarball*,
typically used by Python libraries.
There is no "--skip-build" flag available for "gem install" command
which would allow us simple move to #3.
>
>
>> #3 is also (barring someone giving us examples where packages are actually
>> broken) only a small one-time cost. Changing the rubygem spec files that
>> are using the old guidelines to use the new guidelines. As stated earlier,
>> the FPC has always known that the Rubygem guidelines needed to be changed
>> but was unaware that the time had come when the old guidelines were no
>> longer needed (lutter hasn't been on the FPC for years). Since you're
>> proposing changes to the guidelines anyway, you can hardly complain about
>> a one-time cost. In terms of an ongoing cost, until you show that there's
>> a non-bug reason that unpacking the source and rebuilding the gem is wrong,
>> there's no extra cost in maintaining this that package maintainers shouldn't
>> be responsible for anyhow.
>>
>>
>> Yes, you see just script which do conversion, but you do not count the
>> exceptions. Once more, I used #3 for rubygem-idn, the only gem which required
>> it and in this one case it immediately failed. So for me it is a *100% failure*
>> of your conversion script.
> I've told you earlier why this is not an impressive statistic. Even if
> *all* rubygem packages were to fail because they're using features of
> rubygems that have been removed in the current version of rubygems, it would
> be beneficial that we had detected the problem and submitted patches to the
> builds to upstream. So in a way the fact that this bug in rubygem-idn would
> have passed unnoticed if you didn't have to fix something else is a failure
> in your proposed guidelines as it's not being detected until unrelated
> changes are made.
Beneficial for whom? Upstream will care about their .gemspec file in
repository they are using to build the gem. They will care about their
rake taks which can build gem, because they are using them. But they
will not care about any .gemspec provided by "gem spec" command.
You do not understand that during the life of the library, there is
several forms of .gemspec. There is probably the upstream .gemspec file
(but not necessarily, it could be generated from code), which is
actually executable Ruby code. Then there is some metadata in .gem file,
however at this point, it was converted to YAML, hence the the "gem
spec" command without additional parameters provide YAML output. Even if
you used the "--ruby" flag, the .gemspec is already different then the
original file used by upstream. After installing the gem by "gem
install", You will get in the gems/specifications third form of the
.gemspec file.
>
>> From last versions of packaging guidelines we moved from #1 to #2 which solves
>> practical problems. Move from #2 to #3 solves some artificial problems.
>>
> That is incorrect. #2 is incomplete by itself. You must include #3 in
> order to have a workable guideline. OTOH, #3 is complete in and of itself.
> So leaving off #2 halves the number of specfile variations they need to know
> if they want to package only rubygems.
I never said that #2 is complete. I said that it is practical and
satisfactory in majority of cases. #3 is exceptional case and should be
handled as all other exceptions. If you want some stats, it is likely
1/290, i.e. 0.35 % chance that you will need #3 for speaking about
current Rawhide, hence it is exception.
>
>> Yes, I agree with you that if differs a bit from other packages. Yes, I agree
>> with you that it could be better. Yes, I proposed that I will work with
>> upstream to allow better way of patching C extensions, without need to move to
>> #3. Neither of this seems to satisfy you.
>>
> That is correct. A workflow that looks like #3 is the correct way to
> package software. You are not proposing to work with upstream to make that
> possible but instead working with upstream to kludge their current broken
> process to do one more thing (patching C extensions) in a broken manner.
Oh my, how you can say that other packaging system has broken process?
They had different design goals and I am sure that their design goal was
not compatibility with RPM nor mimic RPM. If it was so broken, then
nobody would used it, but the reality is opposite. Everybody is
wondering why not to stick with rubygems, why use RPM. And I see that
sometimes it would be really easier.
>
> The proposed #3 is the workflow that the package build should have. If
> you're unsatisfied with that, you should be talking to upstream about how to
> adapt their build system to meet that workflow in all cases.
The proposed #3 is the workflow RPM has and RubyGems does not have.
There is nothing wrong with that.
>
>> Please note that this [1] was the last proposal coming from me and Ruby-SIG. I
>> am not against formal changes of the guidelines, as was done by Toshio, if FPC
>> believes they will be better aligned with other guidelines. I never said
>> nothing against. I totally support that effort. When I was asked to come up
>> with the way how to patch the C extensions and I did that. However I am
>> strongly against mandatory #3.
>>
> But you have given no examples that show why it would be wrong. And without
> that, you're just spreading fear that a mandatory #3 will cause you issues.
Come on, you gave no example that it will work for majority of cases, so
how you can propose it??? If Ruby-SIG believed it is that important, it
would be already mandatory in the proposal.
>
> If you're so sure that you can get close to a 100% failure rate out of #3
> that is due to problems with the procedure rather than bugs in upstream
> packaging, you should be able to pick a random rubygem, adapt it to #3 and
> then expose some new type of bug that we can examine and determine why it's
> unworkable. Failing to do that, the argument that it won't work is just
> speculation, not fact.
As same as from your side. Please don't try to manipulate us.
Vit
>
> -Toshio
>
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
11 years, 9 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] New packaging guidelines for Ruby
by Vít Ondruch
Dne 29.2.2012 17:53, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 06:43:14AM -0500, Mo Morsi wrote:
>>> Ok, I'll give you 3 examples:
>>>
>>> = Old guidelines, used from the time RubyGems were packaged for Fedora =
>>>
>>> %prep
>>>
>>> %build
>>>
>>> %install
>>> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
>>> gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} \
>>> --force %{SOURCE0}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> = What we are proposing =
>>>
>>> %prep
>>> %setup -q -c -T
>>> mkdir -p .%{gem_dir}
>>> gem install --local --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \
>>> --force %{SOURCE0}
>>>
>>> %build
>>>
>>> %install
>>> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
>>> cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \
>>> %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> = What FPC is proposing =
>>>
>>> %prep
>>> %setup -q -c -T
>>> pushd ..
>>> gem unpack %{SOURCE0}
>>>
>>> pushd %{gem_name}-%{version}
>>> gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby> %{gem_name}.gemspec
>>>
>>> gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
>>> popd
>>> popd
>>>
>>> %build
>>> mkdir -p ./%{gem_dir}
>>> gem install --local --install-dir ./%{gem_dir} \
>>> --force ../%{gem_name}-%{version}/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem
>>>
>>> %install
>>> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
>>> cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \
>>> %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/
>>>
>>>
>>> All three versions provide the same output, unless I did some mistake,
>>> since I did not tested it (actually the middle one was taken directly
>>> from rubygem-POpen4.spec). So which version you prefer? Please note
>>> that the "gem install" will always "unpack" the gem with some
>>> additional, for our case unimportant, steps. We do not distribute the
>>> .gem file anywhere.
>> Alternatively we can go with a hybrid of solutions 2 and 3 (your and
>> FPC's proposals) where the 'gem unpack' and 'gem spec' steps are optional.
>>
> As Vit points out, there is no way to implement #2 alone -- it must be
> combined with some form of #3 otherwise you just can't patch C Extensions.
> A hybrid approach, though, could debate when you decide to implement #3
> instead of #2. (ie: all patching, or only when patching C extensions?)
>
>> The majority of gems do not need an additional modification or patching
>> to be converted into a RPM. Yes these steps bring things more inline w/
>> other packages, but at the expense of unnecessary additional work.
>>
>> If the solution is to suggest gem unpack / gem spec is used while
>> allowing for it to be omitted (still need to determine if gem install
>> should still be run in the %build or %install sections), package
>> maintainers will have a bit more flexibility to run the steps necessary
>> to build their package w/out any additional work, while at the same time
>> still being more compliant and in-line w/ other Fedora practices.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> I've been thinking about this for a week and also waiting for people to
> bring forth packages that would be broken by it to see if there's any actual
> problems with the strategy. No packages beyond the original one which is
> a bug from upstream has been presented. Without that sort of example, I'm
> going to vote for #3.
Well it is hard to bring you some example, because there are non. There
are no experiences with the #3 except with rubygem-idn, and in this case
the simple approach described in guidelines fails. Try to remove the
following lines from the spec:
# Avoid "cert_chain must not be nil" error.
sed -i -e "10d" %{gem_name}.gemspec
and you'll see what I am talking about. Please do not ignore these
custom lines I had to come up with to let the #3 work.
>
> #2 is more complex as people have to keep in mind two sets of instructions.
> When a bug fix is needed, it will not be simple to apply it as you'd have to
> change the whole structure of the spec file in order to apply the patch and
> then revert those changes when the patch is no longer needed. The
> temptation for the packager in that situation will be to not apply bug fixes
> until after they've made it into an upstream gem release.
Yes, it will not be simple to apply changes, therefore we are moving
from approach #1 which was valid up until now and proposing the approach
#2, which works well for all packages except rubygem-idn
>
> #2 does not fix the problem with rpmbuild --short-circuit.
To be honest, I do not understand what is the point with the
--short-circuit. According to documentation "--short-circuit skip
straight to specified stage (only for c,i)". I do not know how are you
using it, but it implies that you have to do "rpmbuild -bp" to be able
to do "rpmbuild -bc --short-circuit". In that case, what does not work
for you? What do you want to see in this step if it is empty?
>
> #3 was compared in the ticket with requiring "Fedora users to always rebuild
> each RPM locally, because there might be sometimes broken dependency or
> other error." This is a wrong comparison. A packager's job is to deal with
> broken dependencies and other errors, not a users. #3 requires packagers to
> deal with these issues, not users.
You should understand that RubyGems is packaging system and if I am
packaging the gem for Fedora, I am user of the packaging system from
point of view of RubyGems and I am package maintainer form point of RPM.
No need to argue about "packager's job". I just wanted to find something
what would give you better feeling what is it about and I gave better,
more detailed, example along the lines somewhere in this thread to Rex.
>
> I'm also seeing the argument made for #2 that it's less work because
> a single command exists to do all the steps. Therefore we should use it.
> This is not a compelling argument because the same can be said of other
> build systems. For most python code, for instance:
>
> %setup -n %{srcname}-%{version}
> python setup.py install --root %{buildroot}
>
> even "make install" is valid under this argument.
I am not familiar with python, but you cannot compare "make install"
with "gem install". It is something really different. Moreover, "make
install" doesn't necessarily mean that the "configure && make" will be
run before.
>
> #3 is also (barring someone giving us examples where packages are actually
> broken) only a small one-time cost. Changing the rubygem spec files that
> are using the old guidelines to use the new guidelines. As stated earlier,
> the FPC has always known that the Rubygem guidelines needed to be changed
> but was unaware that the time had come when the old guidelines were no
> longer needed (lutter hasn't been on the FPC for years). Since you're
> proposing changes to the guidelines anyway, you can hardly complain about
> a one-time cost. In terms of an ongoing cost, until you show that there's
> a non-bug reason that unpacking the source and rebuilding the gem is wrong,
> there's no extra cost in maintaining this that package maintainers shouldn't
> be responsible for anyhow.
Yes, you see just script which do conversion, but you do not count the
exceptions. Once more, I used #3 for rubygem-idn, the only gem which
required it and in this one case it immediately failed. So for me it is
a *100% failure* of your conversion script.
From last versions of packaging guidelines we moved from #1 to #2 which
solves practical problems. Move from #2 to #3 solves some artificial
problems.
Yes, I agree with you that if differs a bit from other packages. Yes, I
agree with you that it could be better. Yes, I proposed that I will work
with upstream to allow better way of patching C extensions, without need
to move to #3. Neither of this seems to satisfy you.
Please note that this [1] was the last proposal coming from me and
Ruby-SIG. I am not against formal changes of the guidelines, as was done
by Toshio, if FPC believes they will be better aligned with other
guidelines. I never said nothing against. I totally support that effort.
When I was asked to come up with the way how to patch the C extensions
and I did that. However I am strongly against mandatory #3.
Vit
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts/Ruby&oldid=27...
>
>> As a side node, if at all possible, please make sure to cc' both lists
>> (packaging and ruby-sig) on replies as this discussion is relevant to
>> both communities. Noticed alot of discussion only on the packaging list
>> meaning the Fedora ruby community is missing out on alot of this.
>>
> I'll try but you may need to pass my message through the ruby-sig
> moderation queue.
>
> -Toshio
>
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
11 years, 9 months
