Puppet and Ruby 2.0
by Michael Stahnke
What is the date to get a newer Puppet into F19? Our master branch
support Ruby 2.0.0 but we haven't cut a release from master for a
while. (It would likely be Puppet 3.2.0).
Puppet Labs probably won't move their entire release cycle for this,
but I can inform them and have the Puppet core team make a good
decision.
stahnma
11 years, 1 month
Re: ruby 2 question
by Mamoru TASAKA
Hello:
Orion Poplawski wrote, at 03/14/2013 07:58 AM +9:00:
> I get the following build (actually install) error building mysql-ruby:
>
> Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.D2sqcQ
> + umask 022
> + cd /builddir/build/BUILD
> + '[' /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ruby-mysql-2.8.2-9.fc20.i386 '!=' / ']'
> + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ruby-mysql-2.8.2-9.fc20.i386
> ++ dirname /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ruby-mysql-2.8.2-9.fc20.i386
> + mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT
> + mkdir /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ruby-mysql-2.8.2-9.fc20.i386
> + cd mysql-ruby-2.8.2
> + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ruby-mysql-2.8.2-9.fc20.i386
> + env DESTDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ruby-mysql-2.8.2-9.fc20.i386 make install
> make: *** No rule to make target `/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ruby-mysql-2.8.2-9.fc20.i386/usr/include/ruby.h', needed by `mysql.o'. Stop.
>
>
> What the heck? mysql-ruby does nothing but:
>
> mysql.c:#include <ruby.h>
>
Well, this is actually mkmf.rb creating somewhat broken Makefile (from ruby 2.0.0).
You can workaround this with something like
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} ruby_headers=
... but this is annoying. Orion, would you file a ticket? Vít, any idea?
(perhaps lib/mkmf.rb or tool/mkconfig.rb or so needs fixing)
Regards,
Mamoru
11 years, 1 month
Proper F18 & F19 spec notation
by Troy Dawson
Hi All,
With the new F19 guidelines now in effect, I'm seeing I have lots of
broken dependencies that want ruby(abi) and I'm in the middle of fixing
them up.
I can do something simple like.
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
BuildRequires: ruby(release) >= %{rubyabi}
%else
BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
%endif
But that just feels sorta hackish.
I've looked through emails and the Guidelines, but I can't find an
official way for your spec files to work with both F19, F18, and
sometimes EPEL6.
Am I missing something, or am I doing it right above.
Thanks
Troy
11 years, 1 month
Ruby 2.0 in F19/Rawhide
by Vít Ondruch
Hi everybody,
Ruby 2.0 just landed in F19/Rawhide [1]. Since the rebuild was not as
fast as one would wish, there will be probably plenty of broken
dependencies. I kindly ask you for patience or better for help with
fixing any remaining issues. Just rebuild is unfortunately not enough.
Please come to Ruby-SIG ML to discuss any issues or ping me on freenode
(vondruch).
Thank you
Vít
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5463#comment:4
11 years, 1 month
package missing dependencies
by Alejandro Perez
Hello list,
I wanted to upgrade on of my package and read the packaging guidelines
for f19 which take out
ruby(abi) requirements in favor for ruby(release) but I'm getting this
message
rubygem-sequel has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
rubygem-sequel-3.45.0-1.fc19.noarch requires ruby(release)
Please advice. thanks
11 years, 1 month
