Heads up: Ruby 1.9.3 landed in Rawhide

[Steve Grubb]

On Saturday, February 11, 2012 12:57:40 PM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41:48AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:32:09 AM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Normally you have to define that in your spec file. What's the magic text
> > to define that? Also, I like keep my spec file as identical as possible
> > between all Fedora releases. Would I have any problem on F16/15 using
> > the same macro?
> 
> I haven't looked into the rawhide packages where this is implemented (and
> the macro files themselves weren't posted to the ticket where the FPC is
> reviewing the new Guidelines) so I can't tell you 100% for sure.
> 
> I'm guessing that the answer is going to be no.  But you may be able to
> work around that with:
> 
> %{!?ruby_vendorlibdir: %global ruby_vendorlibdir DEFINITIONHERE}
> 
> Note that I've just been reviewing the latest additions to the draft
> guidelines and some of the information there may lead to an even more major
> overhaul of the guidelines before they go final.
> 
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/134

I guess I could just disable building ruby bindings and no longer support that 
language. Would anyone miss libprelude bindings for ruby? Not sure if there is a 
fedora process for dropping support of a language,

-Steve