Ruby 1.8.7 RPM RC1

Mohammed Morsi mmorsi at redhat.com
Tue Jul 13 03:50:18 UTC 2010


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}-refm-rdp-1.8.2-ja-html.tar.gz 


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outdated and I'm not sure if we want to be shipping old (almost 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These also seem outdated (written in 1999), and again I couldn't find 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_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
>
>    

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


More information about the ruby-sig mailing list