8 a.m.
Dne 16.8.2012 14:29, Miroslav Suchy napsal(a):
Hi,
I would like to start discussion, whether packaged rubygems should
include cached gem file.
I'm seeing shift from "should exclude cached .gem file" to "must
exclude
cached .gem file". I tried to search archive of this mailing list for
discussion about this, but find none.
There was at least this discussion:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2011-March/000483.html
While current guidelines does not address this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
In discussion page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby#Cached_.gem_file
is this text:
> The package *should* exclude the cached .gem file in files section:
> %exclude %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem
>Since the gem is installed using RPM, it makes no sense to include the
>cached .gem file. This file is used typically with 'gem pristine'
>command to restore gem into its original state, but this could be
>achieved by equivalent RPM command.
And in draft:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby
is even:
Since the Gem is installed using RPM, you *must* exclude the .gem file.
Yes, these draft and notes were also referenced in the Ruby-SIG list.
And this is even what is in current fedora-review(1) as in its output is:
[x]: MUST Gem package must exclude cached Gem.
I already asked to relax this MUST:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848283
I do not understand why it is MUST item. And anyway, why it could not be
present.
It just consumes space and the functionality it serves is replaced by
RPM functionality.
I would like to have cached gem in final package. I will tell you
why.
I have several collegues, which develop application for Fedora, but they
develop on MacOS.
Usually they download rubygems from rubygems.org. But sometimes Fedora
version of rubygem has patch applied.
In such case when we do:
%prep
gem unpack %{SOURCE0}
%setup -q -D -T -n %{gem_name}-%{version}
gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec
%patch0 -p1
%build
...
gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
This is mandatory only for gems with binary extension and just a few
gems are using this approach.
the resulting gem file is different (compared to rubygem.org version).
If cached gem file is present in package, they can easily extract it and
use this one - because sometimes the behaviour is different (compared to
rubygem.org version).
And if I correctly understood 'gem pristine' - it will not help here as
it will not create .gem file with those security patches.
Gem pristine restores the gem into its original form, e.g. if you go to
the gem, modify it and then you want to revert it replaces the modified
files. It uses the cached version of the gem if available and if not
available, it donwloads it from rubygems.org
So what I would like to see, is to have cached gem present in package.
At list for packages containing patch.
But since people have tendency to forget ("Oh, security problem. Lets
add patch." days/month later: "You forgot to add cached .gem."
"Sorry")
- I would suggest to include cached gem always (i.e. MUST item). But I
understood that sometimes it can be very hard to repackage gem, as it
can be old and may miss some required metadata, so I would say it SHOULD
include cached gem.
Opinions?
Still not convinced. Still not sure that the workflow you are describing
works and is used exclusively, i.e. take cached gems from Fedora.
Vit