gem2rpm rpm acceptable?
Mohammed Morsi
mmorsi at redhat.com
Wed Jul 7 00:47:28 UTC 2010
On 07/06/2010 05:53 PM, Guillermo Gómez wrote:
> Hi there ruby/sig, :)
>
> Im looking to produce a fedora pkg for phusion passenger.
> First i tried from ground cero, then i recalled gem2rpm command.
> Of ocurse i took the shortcut, now i have an rpm which sources are not
> "pristine" ¿are they? I produced the gem from the pristine source with
>
>
Phusion passenger has already been submitted. Unfortunately it doesn't
look like it's going to make it in unless a critical issue is resolved,
namely the passenger project forks the boost::thread library which is
currently not acceptable due to the Fedora guidelines (AFAIK any fork
has to be its own separate upstream project, and can't simply be rolled
into another)
See the package submission for more details
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696
> rake package:gem
>
> Then
>
> gem2rpm gem-name> new.spec
>
> Is this procedure acceptable for Fedora to produce rpms?
>
Usually we base the packages pushed to Fedora off a official gemcutter
release. Eg the Source0 uri should be one from rubygems.org
See rubygem-compass for example, or one of many other rubygems in Fedora
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rubygem-compass/F-13/rubygem-compass.spec?view=markup
(note though since the 'official' rubygems.org repo is relatively new,
alot of gems in Fedora are still pointing at gems.rubyforge.org or
gemcutter.org)
This way we are sure we are basing our rpms off a 'stable' release and
not the latest (potentially unstable) project source head.
Hope this helps, and don't let passenger already being submitted
discourage you, there are still many more rubygems to be packaged!
-Mo
More information about the ruby-sig
mailing list