Ruby 1.8.7 RPM RC1

[Mo Morsi]

For those who don't know, the Fedora 14 feature submission deadline is 
one week from today, Tuesday July 13th

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule

I think it would be great if we can add Ruby 1.8.7 to that feature list, 
and I believe we are pretty much there with the latest ruby rpm

http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-2.fc13.src.rpm

This latest rpm addresses all the outstanding issues so far, including 
various small macro related cleanups, the readdition of the upstream 
ext/tk codebase, and the removal of .tk.old (courtesy of Jim).

If there is anything I missed please shout out, else please test your 
software against it extensively so that we can push it to rawhide and 
add the updated Ruby to the F14 feature list before next week. To 
provide the lowest barrier to test Fedora / Ruby 1.8.7, I also threw 
together a virtual appliance with everything (Ruby 1.8.7 and Rails 
2.3.8) all setup to go (simply launch the appliance, checkout your code 
on it, and test away). It can be downloaded here

http://projects.morsi.org/polisher/appliances/fedora-ruby-187.tgz

Also, once again, if you just need the updated rails rpms to test 
against as well, you can find those here

http://mo.morsi.org/blog/node/322

   -Mo

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 07/07/2010 10:37 AM +9:00:
>  For those who don't know, the Fedora 14 feature submission
> deadline is one week from today, Tuesday July 13th
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule
>
>  I think it would be great if we can add Ruby 1.8.7 to that feature list, and I believe we
> are pretty much there with the latest ruby rpm
>
>  http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-2.fc13.src.rpm
>
>  This latest rpm addresses all the outstanding issues so far, including various small
> macro related cleanups, the readdition of the upstream ext/tk codebase, and the removal of
> .tk.old (courtesy of Jim).
>
>  If there is anything I missed please shout out, else please test your software against it
> extensively so that we can push it to rawhide and add the updated Ruby to the F14 feature
> list before next week. To provide the lowest barrier to test Fedora / Ruby 1.8.7, I also
> threw together a virtual appliance with everything (Ruby 1.8.7 and Rails 2.3.8) all setup
> to go (simply launch the appliance, checkout your code on it, and test away). It can be
> downloaded here
>
>  http://projects.morsi.org/polisher/appliances/fedora-ruby-187.tgz
>
>  Also, once again, if you just need the updated rails rpms to test against as well, you
> can find those here
>
>  http://mo.morsi.org/blog/node/322
>
>  -Mo
>  
Thank you. I want to try your srpm at least by Sunday.

Regards,
Mamoru

[tommy xiao]

2010/7/8 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt;

>  >
>  > http://mo.morsi.org/blog/node/322
>  >
>  > -Mo
>  >
>
>  Cool. 

-- 
tommy xiao
E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Hello, all:

Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 07/08/2010 06:06 PM +9:00:
>  Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 07/07/2010 10:37 AM +9:00:
> > For those who don't know, the Fedora 14 feature submission deadline is one week
> from today,
> > Tuesday July 13th
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule
> >
> > I think it would be great if we can add Ruby 1.8.7 to that feature list,
> > and I believe we are pretty much there with the latest ruby rpm
> >
> > http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-2.fc13.src.rpm 
First of all, I appreciate your contribution on ruby187 srpm.

However I see some regressions in your srpm.
- Many document or example files which were present in 1.8.6.x srpm are
   now missing.
   * -docs rpm now contain copyright files or so only and completely
     useless
   * -tcltk rpm now misses example files

- -mode subpackage is now missing. If there is some reason for this, please
   add proper obsoletes / provides on at least one of the created binary rpm
   so that upgrade path won't break, with adding some comments there.

- on i686, Arch-dependent files are now moved from /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux
   to /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/
   * on i386 this is very confusing because there are both arch-dependent and
     arch-indepent files under /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 .
     - Note that usual package uses /usr/share for arch-independent files and
       /usr/lib{,64} for arch-dependent files. Similarly, we should use different
       directories for arch-dependent and arch-independent files.
       Also, I guess kanarip is now considering to move arch-independent ruby files
       to /usr/share for ruby19.
   * Also now on i686 build.log conplains:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/bubblebabble.so
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/md5.so
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/rmd160.so
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha1.so
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha2.rb
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha2.so
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io/nonblock.rb
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io/wait.so
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc/cparse.so
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc/parser.rb
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/rbconfig.rb
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   Please move arch-dependent files to /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux as before

Other comments:
- Please write some comments what the patches in the srpm is for.
   Also please comment if the patches are fedora-specific or not:
  
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_ha...
   
It seems that binary rpms rebuilt from your srpm basically works
on i686, thank you.

Regards,
Mamoru

[Jim Meyering]

Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule
> >>
> >> I think it would be great if we can add Ruby 1.8.7 to that feature list,
> >> and I believe we are pretty much there with the latest ruby rpm
> >>
> >> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-2.fc13.src.rpm
>
>  First of all, I appreciate your contribution on ruby187 srpm.
>
>  However I see some regressions in your srpm. 
...
>  - -mode subpackage is now missing. If there is some reason for this,
> please
>     add proper obsoletes / provides on at least one of the created binary rpm
>     so that upgrade path won't break, with adding some comments there. 
Thank you for the review.
As far as I know, the ruby mode provided by emacs-23.2.x is fine.
That's why I removed it from the RHEL-6 rpm.

[Mo Morsi]

On 07/10/2010 03:39 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>  Hello, all:
>
>  Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 07/08/2010 06:06 PM +9:00:
>     
> > Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 07/07/2010 10:37 AM +9:00:
> >      
> >> For those who don't know, the Fedora 14 feature submission deadline is one
> week from today,
> >> Tuesday July 13th
> >>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule
> >>
> >> I think it would be great if we can add Ruby 1.8.7 to that feature list,
> >> and I believe we are pretty much there with the latest ruby rpm
> >>
> >> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-2.fc13.src.rpm
> >>        
>  First of all, I appreciate your contribution on ruby187 srpm.
>      
No problem. New SRPM addressing these concerns available here:

http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13.src.rpm


Comments inline below.

>  However I see some regressions in your srpm.
>  - Many document or example files which were present in 1.8.6.x srpm are
>      now missing.
>      
I added alot of the documentation from the ruby source back. Note, there 
were three documentation sources in 1.8.6 that I removed for the 
following reasons:

Source1: 
http://elbereth-hp.hp.infoseek.co.jp/files/ruby/refm/old/2005/%{name}-ref...



This is the 1.8.2 reference manual is it not, which is obviously 
outdated and I'm not sure if we want to be shipping old (almost 
certainly inacurate) docs. I couldn't find an updated refm on that site, 
so I removed it all together

Source2: ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/%{name}/doc/rubyfaq-990927.tar.gz
Source3: ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/%{name}/doc/rubyfaq-jp-990927.tar.gz

These also seem outdated (written in 1999), and again I couldn't find 
more recent copies via the web so I removed them.

I understand the desire to ship some of these docs via rpm packages, so 
even if a user doesn't have internet access they still can read up on 
Ruby usage, but I'm not convinced that shipping incorrect documentation 
is better than shipping no documentation (which we aren't doing anymore 
anyways since I added the source docs back).

>      * -docs rpm now contain copyright files or so only and
> completely
>        useless
>      
Since docs contains the ruby reference manual and the faqs above, I 
removed this package all together and added an obsolete. I can readd if 
there is up to date documentation available.

>      * -tcltk rpm now misses example files
>      
Readded these.

>  - -mode subpackage is now missing. If there is some reason for this,
> please
>      add proper obsoletes / provides on at least one of the created binary rpm
>      so that upgrade path won't break, with adding some comments there.
>      
As Jim mentioned, these are now provided as part of the emacs package 
and thus I removed them. I marked the package as obsoleted as you suggested.

>  - on i686, Arch-dependent files are now moved from
> /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux
>      to /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/
>      * on i386 this is very confusing because there are both arch-dependent and
>        arch-indepent files under /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 .
>        - Note that usual package uses /usr/share for arch-independent files and
>          /usr/lib{,64} for arch-dependent files. Similarly, we should use different
>          directories for arch-dependent and arch-independent files.
>          Also, I guess kanarip is now considering to move arch-independent ruby files
>          to /usr/share for ruby19.
>      
Done.

>      * Also now on i686 build.log conplains:
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/bubblebabble.so
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/md5.so
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/rmd160.so
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha1.so
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha2.rb
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/digest/sha2.so
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io/nonblock.rb
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/io/wait.so
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc/cparse.so
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/racc/parser.rb
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/rbconfig.rb
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
>  DEBUG: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>      Please move arch-dependent files to /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux as before
>      
Done

>  Other comments:
>  - Please write some comments what the patches in the srpm is for.
>      Also please comment if the patches are fedora-specific or not:
>     
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_ha...
>
>      
Done.

>  It seems that binary rpms rebuilt from your srpm basically works
>  on i686, thank you.
>
>  Regards,
>  Mamoru
>
>      
Also a couple of other things. First off, it seems the change log is 
about as twice the size of the rest of the spec file itself. Is it ever 
acceptable to truncate this? Perhaps with a note, saying see cvs for the 
rest of the changelog?

Also what does everyone think about adding 'Ruby 1.8.7' as a feature for 
F14 by tomorrow's submission deadline. It seems we are getting pretty 
close to where we want to be with the Ruby 1.8.7 rpm and since there are 
a few other language updates on the list (Python, Perl), it'd be great 
if we could add Ruby to the bunch.

   -Mo

[Michael Stahnke]

I'd like to see it as an F14 feature.

[jason.guiditta]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Michael Stahnke <mastahnke(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>  I'd like to see it as an F14 feature. 

Would be great to have it as a feature -  I think you are probably closer to
complete than many of the other features, including Python (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/FeatureList).  I say go for it,
it has to approved anyway (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals), and if you hit a
major roadblock, it could slip if absolutely needed (though I really don't
see this happening, seems to be 90% there already).  Great work pushing this
forward, really looking forward to having a slightly more modern ruby
available in fedora!

-j

[tommy xiao]

Cool!

2010/7/13 Jason Guiditta <jason.guiditta(a)gmail.com&gt;

>  On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Michael Stahnke
> <mastahnke(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see it as an F14 feature.
>
>
>  Would be great to have it as a feature -  I think you are probably closer
>  to complete than many of the other features, including Python (
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/FeatureList).  I say go for it,
>  it has to approved anyway (
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals), and if you hit
>  a major roadblock, it could slip if absolutely needed (though I really don't
>  see this happening, seems to be 90% there already).  Great work pushing this
>  forward, really looking forward to having a slightly more modern ruby
>  available in fedora!
>
>  -j
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>  


-- 
tommy xiao
E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com

[Mo Morsi]

On 07/13/2010 09:04 AM, Jason Guiditta wrote:
>  On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Michael Stahnke
> <mastahnke(a)gmail.com 
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>      I'd like to see it as an F14 feature.
>
>
>  Would be great to have it as a feature -  I think you are probably 
>  closer to complete than many of the other features, including Python 
>  (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/FeatureList).  I say go 
>  for it, it has to approved anyway 
>  (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals), and if you 
>  hit a major roadblock, it could slip if absolutely needed (though I 
>  really don't see this happening, seems to be 90% there already).  
>  Great work pushing this forward, really looking forward to having a 
>  slightly more modern ruby available in fedora!
>
>  -j
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 
Feature submitted:

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_1.8.7

   -Mo

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Hello, all:

Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 07/13/2010 12:50 PM +9:00:
>  On 07/10/2010 03:39 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>
>  http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13.src.rpm 
Again thank you!


>  Also a couple of other things. First off, it seems the change log
>  is about as twice the size of the rest of the spec file itself.
>  Is it ever acceptable to truncate this? Perhaps with a note, saying see cvs for the rest
> of the changelog? 
- If you want to shorten %changelog, please check what "vim" srpm
   does. i.e.
   - Create "Changelog.rpm"
   - Move old %changelog entry there
   - And at the end of %changelog, write "for older history, please see
     'Changelog.rpm'".


Some notes for 1.8.7.299-3:

* Obsoletes for -mode, -docs
   - Please make Obsoletes EVR specific
     - in case these subpackage revives. Obsoletes without
       EVR specification causes some annoying problems in
       some cases
     i.e. Change Obsoletes to like: "Obsoletes: %{name}-mode < 1.8.7"
     and so on.

* Documention
   - For example, still -tcltk subpackage misses most of example
     ruby scripts

   ! Note
     - Please try to make "$ rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit" (after
       "$ rpmbuild -bc" is done) succeeds even when executed for multiple
       times to make the spec file easier to maintain.
       - If "$ rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit" fails when executed multiple
         time, we have to execute whole rpmbuild process again even if
         we only want to modify %install section.

      So, for example,
       - Please don't do:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    241  mkdir ruby ruby-libs ruby-tcltk irb
    242  mv ../%{name}-%{arcver}/sample/* ruby
    244  mv ../%{name}-%{arcver}/lib/README* ../%{name}-%{arcver}/doc/* ruby-libs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
         With this, all files under ../%{name}-%{arcver}/sample/ are
         gone (and the same thing happens on line 244).
         So if "rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit" is executed again,
         these line fails because there are no longer needed files under
         ../%{name}-%{arcver}/sample/* (and the same for line 244).

         The correct way is not to use "mv" here, but to replace this with
         "cp -a".

       - The following lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    236  # install documenation in tmp directory to be
    237  # picked up by %doc macros in %files sections
    238  mkdir tmp-ruby-docs
    239  pushd tmp-ruby-docs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
         fails when "-bi --short-circuit" is executed again because
         "tmp-ruby-docs" directory already exists. The correct way is
         to execute "rm -rf tmp-ruby-docs" before these lines to make
         it sure that "tmp-ruby-docs" directory is newly created.

       - By the way about the following line:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    245  find ../ext -mindepth 1 \
    246    \( -path '*/sample/*' -o -path '*/demo/*' \) -o \
    247    \( -name '*.rb' -not -path '*/lib/*' -not -name extconf.rb \)
-o \
    248    \( -name 'README*' -o -name '*.txt*' -o -name 'MANUAL*'
\) -exec mv -f {} ruby-libs \;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
         * At least the line 245 should be
           "find ../%{name}-%{arcver}/ext -mindepth 1 \"

         * And using "-exec mv -f" is wrong here because
           - This moves all the files matching "find" condition into the same
             "ruby-libs" diretory, without ignoring (deleting) directory
hierarchy.
             I guess the reason the original specfile used "tar" command is
             to keep directory hierarchy.
           - And as I said above, "mv" removes the files from the original
directory,
             so this causes "rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit" fail when executed
             again.
             However, simply replacing "mv -f" to "cp -a" does not
work
             here because of the above reason.

       - And the following lines:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    251  find ruby-libs -name *tcltklib* -exec mv {} ruby-tcltk \;
    252  find ruby-libs -name *tk*       -exec mv {} ruby-tcltk \;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
         is not good because this also ignores directory hierarchy.

* Directory ownership issue
   - Still i686 koji build complains:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   2430  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby
   2431  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8
   2432  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby
   2433  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
   2434  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

   - On the other hand,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ ls -1 *x86_64*rpm | grep -v debuginfo | xargs rpm -qlpv | grep '^d' | sed -e
's|^.* ||' | grep lib64 | sort
/usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/digest
/usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/io
/usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/racc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     so the needed directories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/
/usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/
/usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby
/usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     are not owned by any packages.
     I guess the following lines in ruby-1.8.7.spec:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    334  %ifnarch ppc64 s390x sparc64 x86_64
    335  %dir %{vendorarchbase}
    336  %dir %{vendorarchbase}/%{rubyxver}
    337  %{sitearchbase}
    338  %endif
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     is the typo of "%ifarch", not "%ifnarch".

* noarch subpackage
   - At least -rdoc and -irb subpackage can be noarch
   ! Well, I thought -ri subpackage can also be noarch, however
     now generated yaml files used for ri now differ between on i686
     and x86_64, so currently -ri subpackage cannot be noarch
     ( however we installs yaml ri document files under %_datadir,
       so these files should be noarch... need investigating.... )

* rpmlint issue
ruby-irb.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ruby-irb-1.8.7.299/irb-tools.rd.ja
ruby-libs.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.7.299/README.1st
ruby-libs.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.7.299/forwardable.rd.ja
   - Please change the encodings to UTF-8 (I guess these are under EUC-JP.. not
     checked)

ruby-static.i686: W: no-documentation
ruby.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary erb
ruby-irb.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary irb
ruby-rdoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdoc
ruby-ri.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ri
ruby.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testrb
   - These can be ignored.

ruby-tcltk.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/tkextlib/pkg_checker.rb 0644L
/usr/bin/env
   - Please change the permission, or remove shebang.

ruby.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-docs
ruby.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-mode
   - These can be ignored.

ruby-irb.i686: W: self-obsoletion irb <= 1.8.7.299-3.fc14 obsoletes irb =
1.8.7.299-3.fc14
ruby-libs.i686: W: self-obsoletion libruby <= 1.8.7.299-3.fc14 obsoletes libruby =
1.8.7.299-3.fc14
ruby-rdoc.i686: W: self-obsoletion rdoc <= 1.8.7.299-3.fc14 obsoletes rdoc =
1.8.7.299-3.fc14
ruby-ri.i686: W: self-obsoletion ri <= 1.8.7.299-3.fc14 obsoletes ri =
1.8.7.299-3.fc14
   - It is better that obsoletes should be "Obsoletes: foo <
%{name}-%{version}",
     not "<=".

ruby-tcltk.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Tcl -> Tc, Tl, Cl
ruby-tcltk.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Tcl -> Tc, Tl, Cl
   - Can be ignored.

ruby-devel.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux/digest.h
ruby-devel.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux/dl.h
ruby-devel.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux/dlconfig.h
   - Permission on these files should be 0644.

ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/biorhythm.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/drb/old_tuplespace.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/drb/simpletuple.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/drb/speedc.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/exyacc.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/from.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/fullpath.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/getopts.test
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/less.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/mpart.rb ./ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/observ.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/pi.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/trojan.rb
/usr/local/bin/ruby
   - Please fix these.

Again thank you for creating ruby187 srpm.

Regards,
Mamoru

[Mo Morsi]

On 07/16/2010 02:15 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>  Hello, all:
>
>  Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 07/13/2010 12:50 PM +9:00:
> > On 07/10/2010 03:39 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> >
> > http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13.src.rpm
>
>  Again thank you! 
No problem. Really sorry on the delay for this response, I got pulled 
back onto deltacloud last week.

Updated srpm can be found here:

http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-4.fc13.src.rpm

> > Also a couple of other things. First off, it seems the change log
> > is about as twice the size of the rest of the spec file itself.
> > Is it ever acceptable to truncate this? Perhaps with a note, saying 
> > see cvs for the rest of the changelog?
>
>  - If you want to shorten %changelog, please check what "vim" srpm
>    does. i.e.
>    - Create "Changelog.rpm"
>    - Move old %changelog entry there
>    - And at the end of %changelog, write "for older history, please see
>      'Changelog.rpm'".
>
>  
Done

>  Some notes for 1.8.7.299-3:
>
>  * Obsoletes for -mode, -docs
>    - Please make Obsoletes EVR specific
>      - in case these subpackage revives. Obsoletes without
>        EVR specification causes some annoying problems in
>        some cases
>      i.e. Change Obsoletes to like: "Obsoletes: %{name}-mode < 1.8.7"
>      and so on.
>  
Done

>  * Documention
>    - For example, still -tcltk subpackage misses most of example
>      ruby scripts
>
>    ! Note
>      - Please try to make "$ rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit" (after
>        "$ rpmbuild -bc" is done) succeeds even when executed for multiple
>        times to make the spec file easier to maintain.
>        - If "$ rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit" fails when executed multiple
>          time, we have to execute whole rpmbuild process again even if
>          we only want to modify %install section. 
Done, now rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit works multiple consecutive times.

>       So, for example,
>        - Please don't do:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     241  mkdir ruby ruby-libs ruby-tcltk irb
>     242  mv ../%{name}-%{arcver}/sample/* ruby
>     244  mv ../%{name}-%{arcver}/lib/README* ../%{name}-%{arcver}/doc/* 
>  ruby-libs
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>          With this, all files under ../%{name}-%{arcver}/sample/ are
>          gone (and the same thing happens on line 244).
>          So if "rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit" is executed again,
>          these line fails because there are no longer needed files under
>          ../%{name}-%{arcver}/sample/* (and the same for line 244).
>
>          The correct way is not to use "mv" here, but to replace this with
>          "cp -a". 
Done

>        - The following lines
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     236  # install documenation in tmp directory to be
>     237  # picked up by %doc macros in %files sections
>     238  mkdir tmp-ruby-docs
>     239  pushd tmp-ruby-docs
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>          fails when "-bi --short-circuit" is executed again because
>          "tmp-ruby-docs" directory already exists. The correct way is
>          to execute "rm -rf tmp-ruby-docs" before these lines to make
>          it sure that "tmp-ruby-docs" directory is newly created.
>  
Done

>        - By the way about the following line:
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     245  find ../ext -mindepth 1 \
>     246    \( -path '*/sample/*' -o -path '*/demo/*' \) -o \
>     247    \( -name '*.rb' -not -path '*/lib/*' -not -name extconf.rb 
>  \) -o \
>     248    \( -name 'README*' -o -name '*.txt*' -o -name 'MANUAL*'
> \) 
>  -exec mv -f {} ruby-libs \;
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>          * At least the line 245 should be
>            "find ../%{name}-%{arcver}/ext -mindepth 1 \"
>
>          * And using "-exec mv -f" is wrong here because
>            - This moves all the files matching "find" condition into 
>  the same
>              "ruby-libs" diretory, without ignoring (deleting) 
>  directory hierarchy.
>              I guess the reason the original specfile used "tar" 
>  command is
>              to keep directory hierarchy.
>            - And as I said above, "mv" removes the files from the 
>  original directory,
>              so this causes "rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit" fail when 
>  executed
>              again.
>              However, simply replacing "mv -f" to "cp -a" does not
> work
>              here because of the above reason.
>  
Ah ok, I was wondering why tar cf was being used just to be piped into 
tar xf. This make sense.

I reverted it back to using tar with a comment about the hierarchy issue 
is the reason its being done that way.

>        - And the following lines:
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     251  find ruby-libs -name *tcltklib* -exec mv {} ruby-tcltk \;
>     252  find ruby-libs -name *tk*       -exec mv {} ruby-tcltk \;
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>          is not good because this also ignores directory hierarchy. 
Reverted these to the old tar way as well.

>  * Directory ownership issue
>    - Still i686 koji build complains:
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    2430  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby
>    2431  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8
>    2432  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby
>    2433  warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
>    2434  warning: File listed twice: 
>  /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    - On the other hand,
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  $ ls -1 *x86_64*rpm | grep -v debuginfo | xargs rpm -qlpv | grep '^d' 
>  | sed -e 's|^.* ||' | grep lib64 | sort
>  /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/digest
>  /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/io
>  /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/racc
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      so the needed directories
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/
>  /usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/
>  /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby
>  /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
>  /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      are not owned by any packages.
>      I guess the following lines in ruby-1.8.7.spec:
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     334  %ifnarch ppc64 s390x sparc64 x86_64
>     335  %dir %{vendorarchbase}
>     336  %dir %{vendorarchbase}/%{rubyxver}
>     337  %{sitearchbase}
>     338  %endif
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      is the typo of "%ifarch", not "%ifnarch". 
Done

>  * noarch subpackage
>    - At least -rdoc and -irb subpackage can be noarch
>    ! Well, I thought -ri subpackage can also be noarch, however
>      now generated yaml files used for ri now differ between on i686
>      and x86_64, so currently -ri subpackage cannot be noarch
>      ( however we installs yaml ri document files under %_datadir,
>        so these files should be noarch... need investigating.... ) 
Done

>  * rpmlint issue
>  ruby-irb.i686: W: file-not-utf8 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-irb-1.8.7.299/irb-tools.rd.ja
>  ruby-libs.i686: W: file-not-utf8 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.7.299/README.1st
>  ruby-libs.i686: W: file-not-utf8 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-libs-1.8.7.299/forwardable.rd.ja
>    - Please change the encodings to UTF-8 (I guess these are under 
>  EUC-JP.. not
>      checked) 
Done

>  ruby-static.i686: W: no-documentation
>  ruby.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary erb
>  ruby-irb.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary irb
>  ruby-rdoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdoc
>  ruby-ri.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ri
>  ruby.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testrb
>    - These can be ignored.
>
>  ruby-tcltk.i686: E: non-executable-script 
>  /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/tkextlib/pkg_checker.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
>    - Please change the permission, or remove shebang. 
Done

>  ruby.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-docs
>  ruby.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-mode
>    - These can be ignored.
>
>  ruby-irb.i686: W: self-obsoletion irb <= 1.8.7.299-3.fc14 obsoletes 
>  irb = 1.8.7.299-3.fc14
>  ruby-libs.i686: W: self-obsoletion libruby <= 1.8.7.299-3.fc14 
>  obsoletes libruby = 1.8.7.299-3.fc14
>  ruby-rdoc.i686: W: self-obsoletion rdoc <= 1.8.7.299-3.fc14 obsoletes 
>  rdoc = 1.8.7.299-3.fc14
>  ruby-ri.i686: W: self-obsoletion ri <= 1.8.7.299-3.fc14 obsoletes ri = 
>  1.8.7.299-3.fc14
>    - It is better that obsoletes should be "Obsoletes: foo < 
>  %{name}-%{version}",
>      not "<=". 
Done

>  ruby-tcltk.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Tcl -> Tc, 
>  Tl, Cl
>  ruby-tcltk.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Tcl -> Tc, Tl, Cl
>    - Can be ignored.
>
>  ruby-devel.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm 
>  /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux/digest.h
>  ruby-devel.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm 
>  /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux/dl.h
>  ruby-devel.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm 
>  /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/i386-linux/dlconfig.h
>    - Permission on these files should be 0644. 
Done

>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/biorhythm.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/drb/old_tuplespace.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/drb/simpletuple.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/drb/speedc.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/exyacc.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/from.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/fullpath.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/getopts.test /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/less.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/mpart.rb ./ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/observ.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/pi.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>  ruby.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter 
>  /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/trojan.rb /usr/local/bin/ruby
>    - Please fix these. 
Done

>  Again thank you for creating ruby187 srpm.
>
>  Regards,
>  Mamoru 
Thanks in return for the reviews and for uploading the new rpms to rawhide.

BTW I also verified that the puppet, rails, and deltacloud test suites 
all work against Ruby 1.8.7 (some bugs were filed in bugzilla, but 
nothing major, mostly spec file stuff).

   -Mo

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 07/27/2010 02:48 PM +9:00:
>  On 07/16/2010 02:15 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> > Hello, all:
> >
> > Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 07/13/2010 12:50 PM +9:00:
> >> On 07/10/2010 03:39 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> >>
> >> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13.src.rpm
> >
> > Again thank you!
>
>  No problem. Really sorry on the delay for this response, I got pulled back onto
> deltacloud last week.
>
>  Updated srpm can be found here:
>
>  http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-4.fc13.src.rpm 
Well, I think I have already fixed the issues I pointed out in
ruby-1.8.7.299-4.fc14 rpm which is already in rawhide tree, and
I think I can say that the changes between your -3 and -4 srpm are
already incorporated into rawhide spec file in some different way
(except for truncating %changelog).
I would appreciate it if you would check the latest ruby spec file.

Again I appreciate your work on ruby 187 srpm.

>  BTW I also verified that the puppet, rails, and deltacloud test suites all work against
> Ruby 1.8.7 (some bugs were filed in bugzilla, but nothing major, mostly spec file stuff).
>
>  -Mo
>  
Regards,
Mamoru