Packaging guidelines for F21

[Vít Ondruch]

Hi,

I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 [1]. The main
two changes are:

1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
one caveat [2]).
2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.

If you have any comments, suggestions, please let me know.


Vít



[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FRuby&di...
[2]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2014-January/001484.html

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 11.3.2014 09:45, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>  Hi,
>
>  I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 [1]. The main
>  two changes are:
>
>  1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
>  one caveat [2]).
>  2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.
>
>  If you have any comments, suggestions, please let me know.
>
>
>  Vít
>
>
>
>  [1]
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FRuby&di...
>  [2]
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2014-January/001484.html
>  

BTW I updated the fermig tool [1], for migration of your .spec files.
You should call "update.rb yourpackage.spec" to update your package.


Vít



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

[Achilleas Pipinellis]

On 11/03/2014 10:45 πμ, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 [1]. The main
>  two changes are:
>  
>  1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
>  one caveat [2]).
>  2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.
>  
>  If you have any comments, suggestions, please let me know.
>  
>   
Seems fine, much simpler now :)

About the caveat, the LOAD_PATH in %check should be updated only for
gems with extensions right?


-- 
FAS : axilleas
GPG : 0xABF99BE5
Blog: http://axilleas.me

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 13.3.2014 14:14, Achilleas Pipinellis napsal(a):
>  On 11/03/2014 10:45 πμ, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 [1]. The main
> > two changes are:
> >
> > 1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
> > one caveat [2]).
> > 2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.
> >
> > If you have any comments, suggestions, please let me know.
> >
> >
>  Seems fine, much simpler now :)
>
>  About the caveat, the LOAD_PATH in %check should be updated only for
>  gems with extensions right?
>
>  
Right ... and I expect that they might be some exceptions. Depends how
the test suite is written.


Vít

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 11.3.2014 09:45, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>  Hi,
>
>  I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 [1]. The main
>  two changes are:
>
>  1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
>  one caveat [2]).
>  2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.
>
>  If you have any comments, suggestions, please let me know.
>
>
>  Vít
>
>
>
>  [1]
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FRuby&di...
>  [2]
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2014-January/001484.html
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 
Submitted to FPC: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/409


Vít

[Mo Morsi]

On 03/11/2014 04:45 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 [1]. The main
>  two changes are:
>
>  1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
>  one caveat [2]).
>  2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.
>
>  If you have any comments, suggestions, please let me know.
>
>
>  Vít
>
>
>
>  [1]
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FRuby&di...
>  [2]
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2014-January/001484.html
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 
Hey Vit read through the changes, they look good, save one point. Under
"Libraries" > "Rubygems"

"There '''should''' not be listed any
<code>Requires</code> nor
<code>Provides</code>, since they are autogenerated."

I understand this is a 'should' and not a 'must' but perhaps this
restriction should only apply to "rubygem Requires", eg rubygem-curb
needs to have a dependency on libcurl which is seemingly in contrast w/
this item.

Perhaps something like this would work?

"There "should" not be any Rubygem <code>Requires</code> not
<code>Provides</code> listed since those are autogenerated"

Also what about BuildRequires, will those be autogenerated?

Other than that looks great, thx for this,

  -Mo

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 19.3.2014 18:26, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
>  On 03/11/2014 04:45 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 [1]. The main
> > two changes are:
> >
> > 1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
> > one caveat [2]).
> > 2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.
> >
> > If you have any comments, suggestions, please let me know.
> >
> >
> > Vít
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FRuby&di...
> > [2]
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2014-January/001484.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>  Hey Vit read through the changes, they look good, save one point. 
Mo, thanks for the review!

>   Under
>  "Libraries" > "Rubygems"
>
>  "There '''should''' not be listed any
> <code>Requires</code> nor
>  <code>Provides</code>, since they are autogenerated."
>
>  I understand this is a 'should' and not a 'must' but perhaps this
>  restriction should only apply to "rubygem Requires", eg rubygem-curb
>  needs to have a dependency on libcurl which is seemingly in contrast w/
>  this item.
>
>  Perhaps something like this would work?
>
>  "There "should" not be any Rubygem <code>Requires</code> not
>  <code>Provides</code> listed since those are autogenerated" 
That is a good idea. I updated the draft [0].



>  Also what about BuildRequires, will those be autogenerated? 
I don't think that this is possible nor it would be reliable, since
there are plenty of gems which do not list the dependencies correctly
(e.g. some rely on Bundler, some lists Rake, which we don't usually
need, similarly with hoe, etc).

Nevertheless, I updated the gem2rpm to generate the BuildRequires [1],
but as you probably noticed, they are kept commented out and you should
review them and enable as needed. Also, they are filtered [2] and some
well known gems which came to my mind are ignored, since we discourage
usage of Rake and Bundler for test suite execution for example. Hoe
mentioned above might be another good candidate for this list IMO.


Vít


[0]
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FRuby&di...
[1]
https://github.com/lutter/gem2rpm/commit/4683a5bc7edb0a489aa4a2a8109a41d9...
[2]
https://github.com/lutter/gem2rpm/blob/master/templates/fedora-19-rawhide...