gem2rpm and Ruby 1.9

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 30.1.2012 15:14, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> Dne 30.1.2012 14:57, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
>> Vít Ondruch wrote, at 01/30/2012 05:19 PM +9:00:
>>> Dne 30.1.2012 07:22, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>>>> Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
>>>>>>> Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The
>>>>>>> guidelines
>>>>>>> seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current
>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>> (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> %gemdir rather than %gem_dir.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> ruby-sig mailing list
>>>>>>> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>>>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav
>>>>>> Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora
>>>>>> 17. You
>>>>>> can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of
>>>>>> gem
>>>>>> from updates-testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your
>>>>>> command
>>>>>> line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17
>>>>>> template
>>>>>> will be picked up automagically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any feedback is welcomed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vit
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new
>>>>> rubygems into
>>>>> rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8
>>>>> for rawhide
>>>>> doesn't have this landed yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ruby-sig mailing list
>>>>>> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ruby-sig mailing list
>>>>> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>>>> Hi Shawn,
>>>> we have a special Koji target named f17-ruby, which will be merged 
>>>> into rawhide just before branching to f17 (somewhere around 
>>>> February 6). For instructions on how to work with that, please se [1].
>>>>
>>>
>>> Shawn, yes, please build your package against (and only) the tag 
>>> mentioned above.
>>> You will save your/ours time with rebuild. Please make sure that all 
>>> your dependencies
>>> are built there [1] prior building you packages.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vit
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?start=0&tagID=199&order=-build_id&inherited=0&latest=1
>>
>> Note that if you update (existing) package on f15(updates-testing),
>> f16(updates-testing), and f17-ruby, and without f17, you will get
>> "broken upgrade path" report from bodhi until f17-ruby packages get
>> tagged into f17, because bodhi checks f15(updates-testing),
>> f16(updates-testing), f17 but not f17-ruby. If you don't want to
>> get this noisy report, you should once build a package against f17,
>> bump release, and next build against f17-ruby.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mamoru
>>
>
> You are right, I did not realized that. Thank you for pointing it out. 
> However, since the f17-ruby will be merged into rawhide approximately 
> in a week, I don't think the build for f17 is worth of the effort 
> (unless somebody beets me to take some action ;).
>
>
> Vit
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

I have pushed the rubygem-gem2rpm into F15, F16. Enjoy.


Vit