Patches in a rubygem-* package...

Wed Apr 11 15:15:54 UTC 2012

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:28:08AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Ah, you were speaking about patching gem with binary extension. Yes,
> then the rubygem-idn should be good example.
> 
> BTW I see you are using %{gemname} macro, while for Fedora => 17
> %{gem_name} macro is preferred.

Those packages I maintain will get upgraded if they're not already for
17+.

-- 
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/attachments/20120411/820e077a/attachment.sig>