Policy re Gems that don't have RPMs yet? - devise attempt

Philip Rhoades phil at pricom.com.au
Sun Jun 30 15:17:12 UTC 2013


Axilleas,

See inline comments:


On 2013-06-30 20:03, Axilleas Pi wrote:
> Hey Philip,
> 
> On 06/29/2013 01:09 AM, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>> Vít,
>> 
>> 
>> On 2013-02-26 19:42, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Dne 25.2.2013 22:01, Philip Rhoades napsal(a):
>>>> People,
>>>> 
>>>> A while ago I posted a note on the Devise forum asking if anyone was
>>>> going to build an RPM for Fedora but didn't get any responses at all
>>>> - no-one even viewed the post!  What happens with Gems in this
>>>> category?  Am I supposed to do anything?  Add a request somewhere?
>>> 
>>> This will get probably the same attention as the post on Devise 
>>> forum.
>>> Sorry.
>>> 
>>>> Use the Gem instead of an RPM while I wait for someone to do the 
>>>> work
>>>> for creating the RPM?
>>> 
>>> This is definitely option.
>>> 
> 
> 
> The devise gem is on the TODO list of the packaging process about
> GitLab. I was planning to get it done this week. I see that one of its
> dependencies (orm_adapter) is not yet packaged for Fedora so, you'll
> have to package it too. If you could wait one day or two that's fine
> otherwise this is a nice chance to start and learn about the packaging
> process :)


It would be nice to make some progress now that I have started the 
exercise . . but in the end, if someone can get it going (me or someone 
else), I will be happy . .


>>>> Should I bite the bullet and see how to produce the RPM myself?
>>> 
>>> And this is the best possibility. You can start here [1] and I'll be
>>> happy to sponsor you.
>> 
>> 
>> OK, I bit the bullet - after having to sort out a problem with
>> installing the dev tools on F18, I got gem2rpm to produce the spec 
>> file
>> for devise and following the instructions at:
>> 
>>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
>> 
>> produced a lot of stuff but no SRPMS or RPMS - the issue seems to be:
>> 
>> 
>> error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/.gitignore
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/.travis.yml
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/.yardopts
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/CHANGELOG.rdoc
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/CONTRIBUTING.md
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/Gemfile
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/Gemfile.lock
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/MIT-LICENSE
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/README.md
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/Rakefile
>> /usr/share/gems/gems/devise-2.2.4/app/controllers/devise/confirmations_controller.rb
> 
> 
> Now, running gem2rpm you have a nice template to start working on, but
> it needs further tinkering to get it working.
> 
> Here's what I have learned these past months.
> 
> After the %prep, %build, %install and %check macros there is one
> called %files. According to the rpm-guide [0], the %files list
> indicates to RPM which files on the build system are to be packaged.
> 
> On the other hand, the section `%files doc` denotes what the
> subpackage -doc will include as well. In there you can put everything
> the gem owns except for the lib/ dir and the LICENSE l(icense should
> always be declared in `%files` macro). But again that is not a strict
> rule and is under the packager's discretion if he wants to include
> files like the Rakefile/Gemfile. These should not be marked as
> documentation files (%doc).
> 
> So, in your case these sections would be like:
> 
> ----------
> 
> %files
> %dir %{gem_instdir}
> %{gem_libdir}
> %{gem_spec}
> %doc %{gem_instdir}/MIT-LICENSE
> %exclude %{gem_cache}
> %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.*
> 
> %files doc
> %doc %{gem_docdir}
> %doc %{gem_instdir}/CHANGELOG.rdoc
> %doc %{gem_instdir}/CONTRIBUTING.md
> %doc %{gem_instdir}/README.md
> %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
> %{gem_instdir}/Gemfile
> %{gem_instdir}/Gemfile.lock
> %{gem_instdir}/gemfiles/
> %{gem_instdir}/test/
> %{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec
> 
> ----------
> 
> But again, maybe devise should be packaged as an app[1] since it
> contains an app folder. Unfortunately I haven't packaged an app before
> to know how to proceed from here. Someone with greater experience care
> to elaborate on that?


I tried changing the sections as you suggested but the errors are still 
the same . .

Thanks,

Phil.
-- 
Philip Rhoades

GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW	2001
Australia
E-mail:  phil at pricom.com.au


More information about the ruby-sig mailing list