Unable to Patch C extension gems - What approach?

[Shawn Starr]

On Friday, February 10, 2012 09:40:39 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> 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.
> 

I can fix that and spin another build, good point.

> > 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.
> 
for addressable, yes. I will fix it in rubygem-idn to the method vs test 
cases.

> 
> 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_Fail
> >> s_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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig