Dne 22.2.2017 v 10:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Hello:
----- 元のメッセージ -----
> 差出人: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
> 宛先: "Ruby SIG mailing list" <ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> 送信済み: 2017年2月22日, 水曜日 18:01:56
> 件名: gcc BR
>
> Hi,
>
> No I feel ashamed that although I was lobbying for gcc BR, I never used
> it in my packages. So thank you František for doing so (I assume that
> you were forced to do so due to gcc missing in buildroot, right?).
This is perhaps not because gcc BR is actually missing in default buildroot,
I somehow accidentally omitted "not" from my remark ... so my guess was
correct ... but I should thank to you Mamoru as well ;)
but because (I told to František that) this is now MUST item for
packaging guideline
(in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409355#c3 )
Packaging guideline itself is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_...
(Althogh I have not modified already existing packages I maintain by myself yet :) )
> Now I just wonder, wouldn't it be better to add these requires into
> ruby-devel? Although one can BR: ruby-devel just because of the macros,
> so this would be unnecessary.
>
> So my other idea is to modify gem2rpm to add the requires whenever the
> gem has binary extension. There might be false positives as well, but
> one should review the otput of gem2rpm, so it is possible to remove the
> BR in case it is not required.
>
> Any comments?
I guess the best is to modify gem2rpm to write "BR: gcc" with commented out by
default, and add a comment which tells that when building C extension, Fedora
packaging guideline now requires "BR: gcc" line.
This is now recorder in this ticket. I hope I'll mange to invest some
time to gem2rpm soon.
Vít
[1]
https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/issues/90