Package review request (ruby 1.9 attempt too)

[Michael Stahnke]

I'm working on building out Puppet on Ruby 1.9 for my day job at
Puppet Labs.  I also recently took over ruby-shadow since it was
orphaned.  Upstream has moved to github and they now only distribute
as a gem.  So, the package will be renamed to rubygem-ruby-shadow.

I *think* I've follwed the new proposed ruby 1.9 guidelines, but I am
sure I've missed a couple things.  I'm also curious if there is a way
I could use the same spec for packages still on Ruby 1.8 (Fedora < 17
and EL)

Anyway, I'd appreciate Feedback. If it's too early to be attempting
Ruby 1.9 reviews, that's fine too. :)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560

stahnma

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

Hi Michael,
I'd recommend waiting until we get the new guidelines approved by FPC. Anyway, your spec looks pretty good, the only thing that comes to my mind right now is that you don't need to define all the macros, they are defined in macros.rubygems in rubygems-devel package. Because you BR: rubygems-devel, there is no need to BR: ruby(rubygems), as the -devel package will draw them in.
When we get the guidelines approved, I'll be happy to do a complete review for you.

Regards,
Bohuslav.

----- Original Message -----
> I'm working on building out Puppet on Ruby 1.9 for my day job at
> Puppet Labs.  I also recently took over ruby-shadow since it was
> orphaned.  Upstream has moved to github and they now only distribute
> as a gem.  So, the package will be renamed to rubygem-ruby-shadow.
>
> I *think* I've follwed the new proposed ruby 1.9 guidelines, but I am
> sure I've missed a couple things.  I'm also curious if there is a way
> I could use the same spec for packages still on Ruby 1.8 (Fedora < 17
> and EL)
>
> Anyway, I'd appreciate Feedback. If it's too early to be attempting
> Ruby 1.9 reviews, that's fine too. :)
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
>
> stahnma
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

[Vít Ondruch]

Hello stahnma,

Good to see this review. I was thinking about gemification myself, but 
you were faster.

As of timing of this review, the earliest possibility to build in Koji 
will be as soon as we will get the promised tag [1]. We were supposed to 
get it yesterday, but unfortunately it did not happened yet :/

Regarding the spec, of course Bohuslav's notes applies and I had some more:

* One of the biggest changes in packaging guidelines and folder 
structure is the move of binary gem libraries into dedicated folder 
under /usr/lib{,64}. For this purpose, there is "%gem_extdir" macro [2] 
defined in macros.rubygems. So according to the guidelines [3] you 
should replace:

pushd %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}
ln -s lib/shadow.so .
popd

by

mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/lib
mv %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/lib/shadow.so %{buildroot}%{gem_extdir}/lib

and you need to adjust the %files section appropriately, so change:

%{gem_instdir}/*so

to

%exclude %{gem_instdir}/lib
%dir %{gem_extdir}
%{gem_extdir}/lib

* We have new "%gem_spec" macro, so you should use it:

%{gem_dir}/specifications/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec => %{gem_spec}

* We have new "%gem_docdir" macro:

%doc %{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version} => %doc %{gem_docdir}

* I would move %{gem_instdir}/*gemspec into -doc subpackage, since it is 
not runtime dependency.
* I would use %exclude in %files section instead of the "rm", but it's 
more of personal preference.
* You have specified wrong license (at least it differs from the 
original package, I did not checked it further).

BTW, are you aware about Bohuslav's work [4, 5], where he published all 
changes needed for all Ruby 1.9.3 packages, including Puppet?

Vit

[1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5016
[2] 
https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec/commit/ab15bdaa728f11ea2e9adb570b305ef943...
[3] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby#RubyGem_with_extension_l...
[4] 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2011-December/000729.html
[5] 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2011-December/000735.html

Dne 17.1.2012 18:30, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
> I'm working on building out Puppet on Ruby 1.9 for my day job at
> Puppet Labs.  I also recently took over ruby-shadow since it was
> orphaned.  Upstream has moved to github and they now only distribute
> as a gem.  So, the package will be renamed to rubygem-ruby-shadow.
>
> I *think* I've follwed the new proposed ruby 1.9 guidelines, but I am
> sure I've missed a couple things.  I'm also curious if there is a way
> I could use the same spec for packages still on Ruby 1.8 (Fedora<  17
> and EL)
>
> Anyway, I'd appreciate Feedback. If it's too early to be attempting
> Ruby 1.9 reviews, that's fine too. :)
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
>
> stahnma
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

[Michael Stahnke]

Thanks for the feedback.

When building, I don't have

%global gem_extdir %{_libdir}/gems/exts/%{gem_name}-%{version}

as a macro.  If I take that out, I get an error in mock.  The rest of
the macros seem to be ok.

Other changes are being incorporated.  I do appreciate the feedback,
even it is a bit early.  As I said, getting packaging working with
Ruby 1.9 is a priority at Puppet Labs, so I figured I'd share my work.
:)

[Michael Stahnke]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Michael Stahnke  wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> When building, I don't have
>
> %global gem_extdir %{_libdir}/gems/exts/%{gem_name}-%{version}
>
> as a macro.  If I take that out, I get an error in mock.  The rest of
> the macros seem to be ok.

Just saw that the commit looked to be fairly recent.  I'm rebasing my
build of ruby.spec and I imagine that will fix it.
> Other changes are being incorporated.  I do appreciate the feedback,
> even it is a bit early.  As I said, getting packaging working with
> Ruby 1.9 is a priority at Puppet Labs, so I figured I'd share my work.
> :)