Hello, again:
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/19/2011 09:43 PM +9:00:
>> - Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now?
> Are you referring to my TODO [2]?
Exactly.
> Since this is really tricky.
> I agree that, if I claim that the RI documentation is platform
> specific, it should go into the %{_libdir},
> on the other side this is bug IMO and I believe that it was also
> agreed by upstrem.
I don't think ri documents should be arch-dependent, either. The
problem is that
currently they really are. Someone can say "so for now they must be
moved to
%_libdir until bugs gets fixed", others can say it need not.
>> - build.log just shows:
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> compiling main.c
>> compiling dmydln.c
>> compiling dmyencoding.c
>> compiling version.c
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific
>> compilation flags are
>> passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that
>> we can
>> see what commands are actually executed during build.
>
> You are right that build of 1.8.7 was more verbose. However I can't
> see any difference in configuration or make flags. I'll try to take a
> look into it but I can't promise.
>
>> - Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also
>> "cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults"
>> in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p".
>
> Is it required at all? It is not used even in %install of 1.8.7, but
> there might be different reason.
> However there is guideline [5], so it is probably good idea.
Please check if timestamps on installed files are correctly kept
(showing verbose build log will also make it easier to check this).
>
>> - include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately
>> packaged on Fedora.
>>
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432
>> Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma?
>> If not, what prevents it?
>
> This is though. I remember this lengthy discussion [4] about (not
> only) oniguruma and from that,
This discussion seems to be about using origuruma with ruby 1.8.x.
> I had the feeling that the upstream version is not compatible with Ruby.
> Moreover, I checked the latest sources from Fedora and from Ruby and
> they differs.
> I cannot imagine to patch Ruby to support the upstream library,
> although we can try
> to open request upstream? What do you think?
Well,
- First of all I don't know where origuruma upstream is working. If
they (oniguruma
upstream) make changes on origuruma bundled in ruby tarball, they
should also
update origuruma tarball and release new one.
- Bundling such external software like origuruma is almost forbidden
on Fedora
(see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 : why
rubygem-passenger
cannot be in Fedora currently) and we should advise ruby upstream
to use external
oniguruma (or to add support to use external oniguruma).
Regards,
Mamoru
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig