%gem_install macro

[Vít Ondruch]

Hi everybody,

I have noticed, that although you are updating your packages to be 
buildable with F19, you are not doing it properly. The %gem_install 
macro, which is mentioned in guidelines, was not introduced just to 
annoy you. It should help you. You probably did not noticed, but without 
the macro, your package does not contain generated RDoc documentation 
anymore. Please fix your packages.

If you want to have your life a bit easier, I prepared update script for 
you [1]. The f19.rb is doing the basic conversion. If you want to update 
also the changelog, then please use the update.rb.

Thank you.

Vít

[1] https://github.com/voxik/fermig

[Troy Dawson]

On 03/18/2013 04:10 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have noticed, that although you are updating your packages to be
> buildable with F19, you are not doing it properly. The %gem_install
> macro, which is mentioned in guidelines, was not introduced just to
> annoy you. It should help you. You probably did not noticed, but without
> the macro, your package does not contain generated RDoc documentation
> anymore. Please fix your packages.
>
> If you want to have your life a bit easier, I prepared update script for
> you [1]. The f19.rb is doing the basic conversion. If you want to update
> also the changelog, then please use the update.rb.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Vít
>
> [1] https://github.com/voxik/fermig
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Hi Vit,
You are correct, on the packages that I fixed up I haven't been doing
that.  I wasn't doing it because I still have to maintain several gems
across the Fedora's and EPEL.
I looked at your scripts (very nice by the way) and then at the
documentation,[2] to try to figure out the clearest, easiest way to have
it work on both, and I had a surprise.
Did something happen to the documentation?
I would have sworn it had something on %gem_install, but now I can't
find it at all.

Troy

[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 18.3.2013 14:59, Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> On 03/18/2013 04:10 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I have noticed, that although you are updating your packages to be
> > buildable with F19, you are not doing it properly. The %gem_install
> > macro, which is mentioned in guidelines, was not introduced just to
> > annoy you. It should help you. You probably did not noticed, but without
> > the macro, your package does not contain generated RDoc documentation
> > anymore. Please fix your packages.
> >
> > If you want to have your life a bit easier, I prepared update script for
> > you [1]. The f19.rb is doing the basic conversion. If you want to update
> > also the changelog, then please use the update.rb.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Vít
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/voxik/fermig
> > _______________________________________________
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>
> Hi Vit,
> You are correct, on the packages that I fixed up I haven't been doing
> that.  I wasn't doing it because I still have to maintain several gems
> across the Fedora's and EPEL.

You can use the same approach we used previously for other macros, e.g.

%{?!gem_install: %global %gem_install(d:n:) \
mkdir -p %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \
\
CONFIGURE_ARGS="--with-cflags='%{optflags}' $CONFIGURE_ARGS" \\
gem install \\
         -V \\
         --local \\
         --install-dir %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \\
         --bindir .%{_bindir} \\
         --force \\
         --document=ri,rdoc \\
         %{-n*}%{!?-n:%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem} \
%{nil}
}

Or some simplified version. Please note that I did not tested this 
macro, so I am pretty sure it does not work out of the box ;) Of course 
if you can express your voice in this ticket [3], that wold be best :)
> I looked at your scripts (very nice by the way) and then at the
> documentation,[2] to try to figure out the clearest, easiest way to have
> it work on both, and I had a surprise.
> Did something happen to the documentation?
> I would have sworn it had something on %gem_install, but now I can't
> find it at all.

Good catch. Thank you for pointing out. It is just in draft [1]. 
Although it was approved [2] (with some comments), it is not propagated 
into main guidelines page :/

Vít

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/256#comment:2
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788001

[Vít Ondruch]

> You can use the same approach we used previously for other macros, e.g.
>
> %{?!gem_install: %global %gem_install(d:n:) \
> mkdir -p %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \
> \
> CONFIGURE_ARGS="--with-cflags='%{optflags}' $CONFIGURE_ARGS" \\
> gem install \\
>         -V \\
>         --local \\
>         --install-dir %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \\
>         --bindir .%{_bindir} \\
>         --force \\
>         --document=ri,rdoc \\
>         %{-n*}%{!?-n:%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem} \
> %{nil}
> }
>
> Or some simplified version. Please note that I did not tested this 
> macro, so I am pretty sure it does not work out of the box ;) Of 
> course if you can express your voice in this ticket [3], that wold be 
> best :)

That is ugly I must say. This might be better:

%if 0%{?fedora} > 18
%gem_install
%else
mkdir -p .%{gem_dir}
gem install --local --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \
             --force --rdoc %{gem_name}-%{version}.gem
%endif

And the best is to not share the .spec file.

Vít

[Russell Harrison]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> You can use the same approach we used previously for other macros, e.g.
> > %{?!gem_install: %global %gem_install(d:n:) \
> > mkdir -p %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \
> > \
> > CONFIGURE_ARGS="--with-cflags=**'%{optflags}' $CONFIGURE_ARGS" \\
> > gem install \\
> >         -V \\
> >         --local \\
> >         --install-dir %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \\
> >         --bindir .%{_bindir} \\
> >         --force \\
> >         --document=ri,rdoc \\
> >         %{-n*}%{!?-n:%{gem_name}-%{**version}.gem} \
> > %{nil}
> > }
> >
> > Or some simplified version. Please note that I did not tested this macro,
> > so I am pretty sure it does not work out of the box ;) Of course if you can
> > express your voice in this ticket [3], that wold be best :)
>
> That is ugly I must say. This might be better:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 18
> %gem_install
> %else
> mkdir -p .%{gem_dir}
> gem install --local --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \
>             --force --rdoc %{gem_name}-%{version}.gem
> %endif
>
> And the best is to not share the .spec file.

Honest question. Why is not sharing the .spec file the best option? I find
that maintaining multiple versions of my spec files is a significant
increase in workload and worries me that its more prone to errors of the
typo variety.

Along those lines. If the same macros were available in epel is there any
reason the same spec files wouldn't work everywhere? What I'm getting at is
would be any value in creating a package that provided the same macros for
older releases which could be included as a BuildRequires for older
packages.  I'm just a bit worried about adding the header to my epel
packages isn't really maintainable since I'd need to update every package
using it if I discovered a bug or another reason it needed to be changed.

Russell

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 21.3.2013 21:11, Russell Harrison napsal(a):
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Vít Ondruch <[e-mail] 
> > wrote:
>     You can use the same approach we used previously for other
>     macros, e.g.
>
>     %{?!gem_install: %global %gem_install(d:n:) \
>     mkdir -p %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \
>     \
>     CONFIGURE_ARGS="--with-cflags='%{optflags}' $CONFIGURE_ARGS" \\\
>     gem install \\\
>             -V \\\
>             --local \\\
>             --install-dir %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \\\
>             --bindir .%{_bindir} \\\
>             --force \\\
>             --document=ri,rdoc \\\
>             %{-n*}%{!?-n:%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem} \
>     %{nil}
>     }
>
>     Or some simplified version. Please note that I did not tested
>     this macro, so I am pretty sure it does not work out of the
>     box ;) Of course if you can express your voice in this ticket
>     [3], that wold be best :)
>
>
> That is ugly I must say. This might be better:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 18
> %gem_install
> %else
> mkdir -p .%{gem_dir}
> gem install --local --install-dir .%{gem_dir} \
>             --force --rdoc %{gem_name}-%{version}.gem
> %endif
>
>
> And the best is to not share the .spec file.
>
>
> Honest question. Why is not sharing the .spec file the best option? I 
> find that maintaining multiple versions of my spec files is a 
> significant increase in workload and worries me that its more prone to 
> errors of the typo variety.

1) According to updates policy, your updates should focus on bugfixes, 
not on introducing latest versions, so the newer versions of Fedora will 
soon differ from older ones.
2) Tons of %if makes .spec file unreadable to everybody except original 
author.
3) It makes hard updating to new packaging guidelines, it makes hard to 
get rid of old RPM stuff, not needed in latest Fedoras.

With git's cherry pick, you can share your changes without sharing the 
entire .spec quite easy.
> Along those lines. If the same macros were available in epel is there 
> any reason the same spec files wouldn't work everywhere?

If they were .... I've got this issue [2] opened for more than a year 
already and it missed RHEL6.3 and RHEL 6.4. Will see if it miss other 
future releases, but unfortunately, I am afraid that it will miss even 
RHEL6.5.
> What I'm getting at is would be any value in creating a package that 
> provided the same macros for older releases which could be included as 
> a BuildRequires for older packages.  I'm just a bit worried about 
> adding the header to my epel packages isn't really maintainable since 
> I'd need to update every package using it if I discovered a bug or 
> another reason it needed to be changed.

I agree, it is not maintainable. On the other hand, it was the same up 
until now. You were always responsible for "gem install" content.
> Russell

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788001