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