On 07/10/2010 03:39 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Hello, all:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 07/08/2010 06:06 PM +9:00:
Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 07/07/2010 10:37 AM +9:00:
For those who don't know, the Fedora 14 feature submission deadline is one week from today, Tuesday July 13th
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule
I think it would be great if we can add Ruby 1.8.7 to that feature list, and I believe we are pretty much there with the latest ruby rpm
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-2.fc13.src.rpm
First of all, I appreciate your contribution on ruby187 srpm.
No problem. New SRPM addressing these concerns available here:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13.src.rpm
Comments inline below.
However I see some regressions in your srpm.
- Many document or example files which were present in 1.8.6.x srpm are now missing.
I added alot of the documentation from the ruby source back. Note, there were three documentation sources in 1.8.6 that I removed for the following reasons:
Source1: http://elbereth-hp.hp.infoseek.co.jp/files/ruby/refm/old/2005/%%7Bname%7D-re...
This is the 1.8.2 reference manual is it not, which is obviously outdated and I'm not sure if we want to be shipping old (almost certainly inacurate) docs. I couldn't find an updated refm on that site, so I removed it all together
Source2: ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/%{name}/doc/rubyfaq-990927.tar.gz Source3: ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/%{name}/doc/rubyfaq-jp-990927.tar.gz
These also seem outdated (written in 1999), and again I couldn't find more recent copies via the web so I removed them.
I understand the desire to ship some of these docs via rpm packages, so even if a user doesn't have internet access they still can read up on Ruby usage, but I'm not convinced that shipping incorrect documentation is better than shipping no documentation (which we aren't doing anymore anyways since I added the source docs back).
* -docs rpm now contain copyright files or so only and completely useless
Since docs contains the ruby reference manual and the faqs above, I removed this package all together and added an obsolete. I can readd if there is up to date documentation available.
* -tcltk rpm now misses example files
Readded these.
- -mode subpackage is now missing. If there is some reason for this, please add proper obsoletes / provides on at least one of the created binary rpm so that upgrade path won't break, with adding some comments there.
As Jim mentioned, these are now provided as part of the emacs package and thus I removed them. I marked the package as obsoleted as you suggested.
- on i686, Arch-dependent files are now moved from /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux to /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/
- on i386 this is very confusing because there are both arch-dependent and arch-indepent files under /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 .
- Note that usual package uses /usr/share for arch-independent files and /usr/lib{,64} for arch-dependent files. Similarly, we should use different directories for arch-dependent and arch-independent files. Also, I guess kanarip is now considering to move arch-independent ruby files to /usr/share for ruby19.
Done.
* Also now on i686 build.log conplains:
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/bubblebabble.so DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/md5.so DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/rmd160.so DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha1.so DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha2.rb DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha2.so DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io/nonblock.rb DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io/wait.so DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc/cparse.so DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc/parser.rb DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/rbconfig.rb DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux
Please move arch-dependent files to /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux as before
Done
Other comments:
- Please write some comments what the patches in the srpm is for. Also please comment if the patches are fedora-specific or not: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_...
Done.
It seems that binary rpms rebuilt from your srpm basically works on i686, thank you.
Regards, Mamoru
Also a couple of other things. First off, it seems the change log is about as twice the size of the rest of the spec file itself. Is it ever acceptable to truncate this? Perhaps with a note, saying see cvs for the rest of the changelog?
Also what does everyone think about adding 'Ruby 1.8.7' as a feature for F14 by tomorrow's submission deadline. It seems we are getting pretty close to where we want to be with the Ruby 1.8.7 rpm and since there are a few other language updates on the list (Python, Perl), it'd be great if we could add Ruby to the bunch.
-Mo