On 06/23/2010 01:13 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Sorry now I am fixing up other packages, however:
Jim Meyering wrote, at 06/24/2010 01:40 AM +9:00:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote, at 06/23/2010 07:31 PM +9:00:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote: ...
In some cases ruby modules install ruby script and C extension module in the same name.
- e.g. On i686 ruby-gnome2-0.19.4-2.fc14.i686 installs * gnome2.rb under /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/ * gnome2.so under /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux/
In this case, with current 1.8.6.x ruby srpm (and also my 1.8.7.x srpm)
Would you please point me to your latest 1.8.7.x srpm ?
Currently at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/mtasaka/task_2258338/
Thank you. I have begun reviewing it. I have adopted the changes that split some of the longer-than-80 lines.
(and I just note that I prefer to write one (Build)Requires on each line because it is easier to read, especially when (Build)Requires changed)
Agreed.
I built from your srpm, and ran this in the build directory on an x86_64 system:
$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./ruby -e 'puts $:' /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby /usr/lib64/site_ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux /usr/lib64/site_ruby /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux .Is that the path you intend? Based on what you said, I expected it to match the path of 1.8.6.x:
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby /usr/lib64/site_ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux /usr/lib64/site_ruby /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8 /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux .Actually, it looks fine, as long as the addition of the three new vendor_ruby/* directories is desired.
The new 1.8.7 search path as provided by my rpm is as follows:
1. /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 2. /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 3. /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux 4. /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby 5. /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby 6. /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 7. /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8 8. /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux
As noted before, /usr/lib64/site_ruby subdirs were removed as the Ruby 1.8.6 package doesn't provide that dir
Well, while I don't use vendor_ruby now (and with the transition from 1.8.6.x to 1.8.7.x on Fedora perhaps this is not needed), actually this is the upstream change:
from ruby_1_8_7/NEWS:
19 == Changes since the 1.8.6 release 20 21 === Configuration changes 22 23 * vendor_ruby directory 24 25 A new library directory named `vendor_ruby' is introduced in 26 addition to `site_ruby'. The idea is to separate libraries 27 installed by the package system (`vendor') from manually (`site') 28 installed libraries preventing the former from getting overwritten 29 by the latter, while preserving the user option to override vendor 30 libraries with site libraries. (`site_ruby' takes precedence over 31 `vendor_ruby') 32 33 If you are a package maintainer, make each library package configure 34 the library passing the `--vendor' option to `extconf.rb' so that 35 the library files will get installed under `vendor_ruby'. 36 37 You can change the directory locations using configure options such 38 as `--with-sitedir=DIR' and `--with-vendordir=DIR'.
So as this is the explicit upstream change, I want to keep this.
Regards, Mamoru
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
I make use of the --with-vendordir flag in my ruby 1.8.7 specfile so we should be good to go. Is there anything else you need me to merge into mine? (either from your 1.8.7 srpm/spec, upstream, or something I removed by mistake?)
-Mo