Proper F18 & F19 spec notation

[Troy Dawson]

Hi All,
With the new F19 guidelines now in effect, I'm seeing I have lots of
broken dependencies that want ruby(abi) and I'm in the middle of fixing
them up.

I can do something simple like.

%if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
BuildRequires: ruby(release) >= %{rubyabi}
%else
BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
%endif

But that just feels sorta hackish.

I've looked through emails and the Guidelines, but I can't find an
official way for your spec files to work with both F19, F18, and
sometimes EPEL6.
Am I missing something, or am I doing it right above.

Thanks
Troy

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 13.3.2013 15:13, Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> Hi All,
> With the new F19 guidelines now in effect, I'm seeing I have lots of
> broken dependencies that want ruby(abi) and I'm in the middle of fixing
> them up.

If you need some priority help with some dependencies, please let me 
know. You can find me (vondruch) in #fedora-ruby on freenode.
> I can do something simple like.
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
> BuildRequires: ruby(release) >= %{rubyabi}

You don't have to specify %{rubyabi} anymore, if you don't need to (e.g. 
there is know that some library runs just on Ruby 2.0.0). The 
"ruby(release)" virtual provide is versioned and should correspond to 
MRI versions where in contrary, the %{rubyabi} corresponded to Ruby's 
ABI (i.e. .so name).
> %else
> BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
> %endif
>
> But that just feels sorta hackish.

Yes, that is hackish, but there is no better way.
> I've looked through emails and the Guidelines, but I can't find an
> official way for your spec files to work with both F19, F18, and
> sometimes EPEL6.
> Am I missing something, or am I doing it right above.
>
> Thanks
> Troy

Thank you.

Vít

[Troy Dawson]

On 03/13/2013 09:25 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 13.3.2013 15:13, Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> > Hi All,
> > With the new F19 guidelines now in effect, I'm seeing I have lots of
> > broken dependencies that want ruby(abi) and I'm in the middle of fixing
> > them up.
>
> If you need some priority help with some dependencies, please let me
> know. You can find me (vondruch) in #fedora-ruby on freenode.
> > I can do something simple like.
> >
> > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
> > BuildRequires: ruby(release) >= %{rubyabi}
>
> You don't have to specify %{rubyabi} anymore, if you don't need to (e.g.
> there is know that some library runs just on Ruby 2.0.0). The
> "ruby(release)" virtual provide is versioned and should correspond to
> MRI versions where in contrary, the %{rubyabi} corresponded to Ruby's
> ABI (i.e. .so name).
> > %else
> > BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
> > %endif

OK, so unless a test proves my release needs a version, it would be

%if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
Requires: ruby(release)
BuildRequires: ruby(release)
%else
Requires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
%endif

I can handle that.

Thanks
> > But that just feels sorta hackish.
>
> Yes, that is hackish, but there is no better way.
> > I've looked through emails and the Guidelines, but I can't find an
> > official way for your spec files to work with both F19, F18, and
> > sometimes EPEL6.
> > Am I missing something, or am I doing it right above.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Troy
>
> Thank you.
>
> Vít
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 13.3.2013 15:32, Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> On 03/13/2013 09:25 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 13.3.2013 15:13, Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> > > Hi All,
> > > With the new F19 guidelines now in effect, I'm seeing I have lots of
> > > broken dependencies that want ruby(abi) and I'm in the middle of fixing
> > > them up.
> >
> > If you need some priority help with some dependencies, please let me
> > know. You can find me (vondruch) in #fedora-ruby on freenode.
> > > I can do something simple like.
> > >
> > > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
> > > BuildRequires: ruby(release) >= %{rubyabi}
> >
> > You don't have to specify %{rubyabi} anymore, if you don't need to (e.g.
> > there is know that some library runs just on Ruby 2.0.0). The
> > "ruby(release)" virtual provide is versioned and should correspond to
> > MRI versions where in contrary, the %{rubyabi} corresponded to Ruby's
> > ABI (i.e. .so name).
> > > %else
> > > BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
> > > %endif
>
> OK, so unless a test proves my release needs a version, it would be
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
> Requires: ruby(release)
> BuildRequires: ruby(release)
> %else
> Requires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
> BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
> %endif

Yes.
> I can handle that.

Ok, great :)

Vít