[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


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

--- Comment #18 from Todd Zullinger <tmz at pobox.com> 2012-03-06 10:35:28 EST ---
Hi Vit,

Sure, we can move the macros into the %if %{?rhel} section -- though they don't
get defined if they exist, so they don't hurt anything where they are.  At the
time I worked on this, I don't believe that all Fedora systems had the updated
rubygems-devel.

The ruby-shadow subpackage is highly desirable so that folks who were ensuring
it was installed in puppet manifests, kickstarts, etc, are able to easily
update their systems.  This is important to EPEL if we ever hope to push this
newer gem packaging there.

I've been holding off while the ruby guidelines are hashed out on the packaging
list.  There is a bit of debate on the draft and the gem unpack/repack bits. 
That and I've been on vacation for a week or so and haven't spent much time on
packaging. :)

FWIW, I am in favor of the unpack/repack if only to make rpmbuild -bp work as
it does in other software.  I don't like the idea of not having anything done
in %prep nor do I like calling gem install in %prep.  That gems are designed to
work this way is a defect in gem in my opinion.  Whether that extra work turns
off some ruby people that might otherwise become Fedora packagers isn't a
concern to me.  I'd rather attract packagers who understand why we have these
things in separate steps. I'll keep my eye on the packaging list for the
results of this discussion.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.