Unable to Patch C extension gems - What approach?
Vít Ondruch
vondruch at redhat.com
Thu Feb 9 13:48:50 UTC 2012
Shawn,
I spent some time with rubygem-idn and here [1] is the srpm I came up
with. Unfortunately, the test suite fails, probably due to changes in
encoding in Ruby 1.9. I would appreciate if you can continue where I
ended and make the test suite pass.
I also worked a bit on the packaging guidelines [2], and I would
appreciate any feedback.
Vit
[1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-idn-0.0.2-4.fc18.src.rpm
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby#Binary_Extension_Fails_to_Build
Dne 9.2.2012 09:05, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> Dne 9.2.2012 02:14, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
>>> This is a problem that Vit has been trying to solve some time ago,
>>> here is
>>> the discussion with suggested steps (not optimal, but there is
>>> probably no
>>> better way, yet) [1].
>> This is going be a problem. Do we have any official approach? I would
>> rather
>> not repackage the gem manually, this is a serious problem for me
>> right now.
>
> Actually you are the first lucky one who needs this. After rebuilding
> most of the packages we really did not meet other gem which needs this
> treatment. There will be no other/better way then the one described in
> link posted by bkabrda.
>
> However, as we need some good example how to do it for guidelines and
> FPC, I'll take a look at this case. Do you have already patch which
> fixes the gem? Are you doing to use this one [1]?
>
> Vit
>
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/mihu/idn
>
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
More information about the ruby-sig
mailing list