check task for rubygems without bundled test

[Mohammed Morsi]

  On 01/19/2011 11:54 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 19.1.2011 17:40, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>> Dne 19.1.2011 17:00, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>>>      Couple of comments.
>>>
>>> On 01/19/2011 10:45 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>
>>>> %check
>>>> mkdir %{_tmppath}/%{gemname}-%{version}
>>>> tar xzvf %{SOURCE1} -C %{_tmppath}/%{gemname}-%{version}
>>>> pushd %{_tmppath}/%{gemname}-%{version}
>>>> ruby -I%{buildroot}%{geminstdir}/lib `which spec` spec
>>>> popd
>>>> rm -rf %{_tmppath}/%{gemname}-%{version}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vit
>>>>
>>> Its not a bad idea to extract the test source in the %prep or %install
>>> sections and leave it around, marking it as %doc in the %files section
>>> (or putting it in the docs subpackage). If you're running gem install in
>>> the %prep section, add the following to that section
>>>
>>> tar xzvf %{SOURCE1} -C .%{geminstdir}
>>>
>>> This is how we're doing it in the activesupport rpm (and all other rails
>>> rpms starting w/ 3.0.3)
>>>
>>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activesupport.spec
>>>
>>> As always, additional thoughts and improvements are welcome.
>> I know, I saw the activesupport. However I believe:
>>
>> 1) The package should be as close to upstream as possible, therefore I
>> am reluctant to keep the test in the rpm.
>> 2) User of the library doesn't care about tests, because he relays on
>> the author of the library and on packager. Although test can be viewed
>> as a documentation, I believe that most of the users will prefer other
>> ways how to reach it (rdoc.info, github). So again, the test are just
>> occupying space on your hard drive.
>>
>> But since this is philosophical topic, I would love to hear some opinion
>> from others.
>>

Yes I agree. The guidelines don't say anything on the matter, so its 
really up to the packager, and it doesn't either way with or without the 
tests included in the final package, so long as they are being run to 
verify the package works when its built. If space is a concern, the 
tests can always go into a seperate docs subpackage as well.

> One more downside is that RSpec are usually defined just as a build time
> dependency, therefore it is not ensured that user can run the specs anyway.
>

If the tests / specs are marked as %doc, we do not need to introduce a 
rspec runtime dependency.

   -Mo