Hi, Steve.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed the link to the new ruby packaging draft and had a
>> comment.
>>
>> Currently the guidelines suggest to do everything basically within
>> prep with build and install empty.
>>
>
> Not really - the guidelines say, that you should use %prep for the
> gem install command (which basically unpacks the gem into a proper
> directory structure) and %install to place the files precisely
> where we need to under %{buildroot}.
>
Bohuslav,
Indeed you are correct, this has changed to some extent with this new
draft where now not eveything is done in %install which is the case
in the current guidelines.
But still the question of patching still arises, for the binary
extension in the gem where would you patch it, surley the gem has to
be unpacked as sepaerate step, its the only way you can get a patch
in there.
As I mentioned in my previous mail, it is perfectly ok to use gem install in %prep, then
patch the binary extension and use %build to recompile it. Otherwise, if it compiles ok,
we have no problem, do we?
Also when i was reviewing a ruby package i had to unpack myself so
that i could check the contents of files for licensing. This is by
hand then rather than the normall "rpmbuild -bp"
Why? gem install basically untars the gem and in addition it generates the gemspec/rdoc.
Fundamentally rpms have always unpacked to source before building
and
installing rather than just coverting package formats.
Well, from one point of view, we _are_ just converting. And we conform with the standard
packaging guidelines.
Ill be costructive and learn some more gem options to suggest
something useful hopefully
As I see it, you have a problem with the fact, that gem install can compile the binary
extension in %prep and not in %build, am I right? In this case, I really think it
doesn't matter, but let some of the other guys state their opinions.
Bohuslav.
Thanks,
Steve.
>> Can it be considered to break this up into the prep build and
>> install
>> sections.
>> The gem can unpacked in prep and im hoping its possible to build
>> and
>> then install from that unpack...( i dont know how to do this or if
>> is possiblE?)
>>
>
> I think that it wouldn't make much sense - the install command in
> %prep does everything we need - unpacks the gem into a proper
> directory structure (and compiles the binary extension, if any).
> This way you can use %prep to apply patches and then, if you need
> to recompile a patched C extension (if any), the %build section is
> the place to do it. Otherwise, I see no point in using %build
> section with rubygems.
>
>> In the current situation it is not obvious how you would apply a
>> patch in the rpm and probably more importly the "rpmbuild -bp",
>> "rpmbuild -bc" or "rpmbuild -bi" do not have there normal
meaning.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, well, if you have nothing to compile, it makes perfect sense
> to leave the %build section empty, doesn't it? And you use %prep
> to unpack the gem and %install to place it into a proper directory
> structure. What's wrong with that? I think that it works exactly
> as it should.
>
> Regards,
> Bohuslav.
>
>> --
>> Steve Traylen
>> _______________________________________________
>> ruby-sig mailing list
>> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig