Dne 18.3.2013 14:59, Troy Dawson napsal(a):
On 03/18/2013 04:10 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have noticed, that although you are updating your packages to be
buildable with F19, you are not doing it properly. The %gem_install
macro, which is mentioned in guidelines, was not introduced just to
annoy you. It should help you. You probably did not noticed, but without
the macro, your package does not contain generated RDoc documentation
anymore. Please fix your packages.
If you want to have your life a bit easier, I prepared update script for
you [1]. The f19.rb is doing the basic conversion. If you want to update
also the changelog, then please use the update.rb.
Thank you.
Vít
[1] https://github.com/voxik/fermig
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi Vit,
You are correct, on the packages that I fixed up I haven't been doing
that. I wasn't doing it because I still have to maintain several gems
across the Fedora's and EPEL.
You can use the same approach we used previously for other macros, e.g.
%{?!gem_install: %global %gem_install(d:n:) \
mkdir -p %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \
\
CONFIGURE_ARGS="--with-cflags='%{optflags}' $CONFIGURE_ARGS" \\\
gem install \\\
-V \\\
--local \\\
--install-dir %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \\\
--bindir .%{_bindir} \\\
--force \\\
--document=ri,rdoc \\\
%{-n*}%{!?-n:%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem} \
%{nil}
}
Or some simplified version. Please note that I did not tested this
macro, so I am pretty sure it does not work out of the box ;) Of course
if you can express your voice in this ticket [3], that wold be best :)
I looked at your scripts (very nice by the way) and then at the
documentation,[2] to try to figure out the clearest, easiest way to have
it work on both, and I had a surprise.
Did something happen to the documentation?
I would have sworn it had something on %gem_install, but now I can't
find it at all.
Good catch. Thank you for pointing out. It is just in draft [1].
Although it was approved [2] (with some comments), it is not propagated
into main guidelines page :/
Vít
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/256#comment:2
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788001
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
