On 06/18/2014 05:23 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Better to not go this way ...
>
Do you mean this whole approach is wrong?
I guess the cleanest option would be to have separate branches.
>
> This is wrong:
>
> ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
>
> it should be:
>
> ruby(abi) = %{rubyabi}
>
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
> Dne 18.6.2014 16:08, Achilleas Pipinellis napsal(a):
>> For starters, the title says **most of**, because I'm not including
>> EPEL5 :p
>>
>> To the point.
>> Now that we have some common ground between the packaging guidelines,
>> I'm trying to get together a template for packaging: fc19, fc20, fc21,
>> el6, el7.
>>
>> I haven't yet packaged anything for EPEL6, so I searched ruby-sig and
>> found some answers. So far I have written down the R/BR, so please
>> correct me I am wrong. Here goes:
>>
>> ```
>> %if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20} || 0%{?el7}
>> Requires: ruby(release)
>> Requires: ruby(rubygems)
>> %endif
>>
>> %if 0%{?el6}
>> Requires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
>> Requires: ruby(rubygems)
>> BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
>> %else
>> BuildRequires: ruby(release)
>> %endif
>>
>> BuildRequires: rubygems-devel
>>
>> %if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20} || 0%{?el7} || 0%{?el6}
>> Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
>> %endif
>> ```
>>
>> Next parts are:
>>
>> 1) if gem has native extensions: different %install macro
>> 2) if gem has minitest: build minitest5 for el7 [0]
>>
>> If I left something out please advise.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> [0] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rubygem-minitest/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
--
FAS : axilleas
GPG : 0xABF99BE5
Blog: http://axilleas.me
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
