On 03/13/2013 09:25 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 13.3.2013 15:13, Troy Dawson napsal(a):
>> 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.
>
> If you need some priority help with some dependencies, please let me
> know. You can find me (vondruch) in #fedora-ruby on freenode.
>
>>
>> I can do something simple like.
>>
>> %if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
>> BuildRequires: ruby(release) >= %{rubyabi}
>
> You don't have to specify %{rubyabi} anymore, if you don't need to (e.g.
> there is know that some library runs just on Ruby 2.0.0). The
> "ruby(release)" virtual provide is versioned and should correspond to
> MRI versions where in contrary, the %{rubyabi} corresponded to Ruby's
> ABI (i.e. .so name).
>
>> %else
>> BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
>> %endif
>>
OK, so unless a test proves my release needs a version, it would be
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
Requires: ruby(release)
BuildRequires: ruby(release)
%else
Requires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
%endif
I can handle that.
Thanks
>> But that just feels sorta hackish.
>
> Yes, that is hackish, but there is no better way.
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Vít
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
