Unable to Patch C extension gems - What approach?

Vít Ondruch vondruch at redhat.com
Fri Feb 10 08:40:39 UTC 2012


Hi Shawn,

Dne 10.2.2012 05:04, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
> On Thursday, February 09, 2012 01:57:34 PM Shawn wrote:
>> Thanks Vit, seems like a good approach to me. I'll look at your SRPM today
>> and see what the failure is.
>>
> Hello,
>
> This had a cascading effect.. rubygem-idn is now fixed, tests pass, although I
> have to do some force_encoding() to get the tests to work.

Are you sure you applied the fixes on the correct place? It seems that 
method #toUnicode should really return UTF-8, so the fix should be in 
the method itself, not in the test. The same apply for #toASCII.

>
> Push to f17-candidate and rawhide.
>
> Because rubygem-addressable (pending review) uses GNU idn directly, this also
> broke with Ruby 1.9.3, I have fixed this also (see patch in SRPM).

You see, the patch for addressable confirms my suspicion.


Vit

>
>> From: "Vít Ondruch"<vondruch at redhat.com>
>> To: "ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org"<ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>> Sent: February 9, 2012 8:48 AM
>> Subject: Re: Unable to Patch C extension gems - What approach?
>>
>> 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_t
>> o_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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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