gcc BR

[Vít Ondruch]

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?).

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?

Vít

-------- Přeposlaná zpráva --------
Předmět: 	Fedora rawhide compose report: 20170221.n.1 changes
Datum: 	Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:47:10 +0000
Od: 	Fedora Rawhide Report 
Přeposláno - Komu: 	Development discussions related to Fedora

Komu: 	[e-mail]

Package:      rubygem-ox-2.4.9-1.fc26
Old package:  rubygem-ox-2.4.7-3.fc26
Summary:      Fast XML parser and object serializer
RPMs:         rubygem-ox rubygem-ox-doc
Size:         801282 bytes
Size change:  2056 bytes
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2017 František Dvořák  - 2.4.9-1
  - Update to 2.4.9 (#1413428)
  - Add gcc BR as required by C and C++ guidelines

[František Dvořák]

Vít Ondruch píše v St 22. 02. 2017 v 10:01 +0100:
> 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?).

Actually it was just to fulfill guidelines (I learned from Mamoru
during doing review, that there is C/C++ specific guidelines, which
I've missed :-)).

So it is not needed right now in existing packages.
> 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?

It looks like both ways are sane and have no big disadvantages? ruby-
devel would simplify things. On other hand dependency from gem2rpm will
put gcc in the place, where is known it is needed.

František

[Mamoru TASAKA]

Hello:

----- 元のメッセージ -----
> 差出人: "Vít Ondruch" 
> 宛先: "Ruby SIG mailing list" 
> 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,
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_Req...

(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.
> Vít
>
> -------- Přeposlaná zpráva --------
> Předmět: 	Fedora rawhide compose report: 20170221.n.1 changes
> Datum: 	Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:47:10 +0000
> Od: 	Fedora Rawhide Report 
> Přeposláno - Komu: 	Development discussions related to Fedora
>
> Komu: 	[e-mail]
>
> Package:      rubygem-ox-2.4.9-1.fc26
> Old package:  rubygem-ox-2.4.7-3.fc26
> Summary:      Fast XML parser and object serializer
> RPMs:         rubygem-ox rubygem-ox-doc
> Size:         801282 bytes
> Size change:  2056 bytes
> Changelog:
> Tue Feb 21 2017 František Dvořák  - 2.4.9-1
> Update to 2.4.9 (#1413428)
> Add gcc BR as required by C and C++ guidelines

Regards,
Mamoru

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 22.2.2017 v 10:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
> Hello:
>
> ----- 元のメッセージ -----
> > 差出人: "Vít Ondruch" 
> > 宛先: "Ruby SIG mailing list" 
> > 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_Req...
>
> (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