Heads up: Ruby 1.9.3 landed in Rawhide

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:42:53AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Monday, February 06, 2012 09:31:50 AM Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > Ruby 1.9.3 has finally made it into Rawhide, there are still few more
> > packages that need to be built, but otherwise the transitions was
> > successful.
> > 
> > Please note again, that soname has been bumped to 1.9.1 and license is
> > changed from GPLv2 or Ruby to BSD or Ruby, as already announced.
> 
> Would have been nice if this project had kicked off rebuilds like other soname 
> bump projects do. :)  I'm finding a problem with my package. According to the 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby guidelines, I should be doing the 
> ruby_sitearch macro. But this seems to point to /usr/local/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/
> and I would have expected it to be somewhere else like /usr/lib64/ruby/...
> 
> Did this really change to /usr/local/lib64/ruby/? The "local" part is throwing 
> off my package.
> 
The new ruby package changed the rpm macros before the new packaging
guidelines for ruby were (they're still pending but hopefully will be
approved by next Wed) approved.  So I believe they want to change from
%ruby_site* to %ruby_vendor*.  This portion of the new Guidelines isn't
controversial to the FPC (FPC did implicitly assume that this change was
arrived at via the whole Ruby SIG rather than just the ruby pakage
maintainer, though -- if this is in error, please let us know) so it's not
ideal but seems reasonable to update your package to use %ruby_vendorarchdir
now that they've pushed out a package that uses these new macros.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120211/95e606a2/attachment.sig>