Dne 10.11.2015 v 17:35 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> Dne 10.11.2015 v 16:09 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Vít Ondruch <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> For a long time, I thought that it would be interesting to have .gem
>> expansion support in %setup macro. This would simply our .spec
>> files a
>> bit. Finally, I gave a go to this idea and proposed this to RPM
>> upstream
>> [1]. Please let me know (preferably via the PR) if you can
>> foresee any
>> issues with this approach.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Vít
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/27
>> _______________________________________________
>> ruby-sig mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>>
>>
>> Hi Vit,
>> I think this is a great idea. Since the instructions for prep of
>> rubygems have settled down for a couple years I think now is the time
>> to do it.
>>
>> I do have one question.
>> If I am reading the code right you have the equivalent of
>> {gem unpack} SOURCE0 && gem spec SOURCE0 --ruby > {gem_name}.gemspec
>>
>> Why aren't you using the -l in the gem spec portion?
>> Shouldn't it be
>>
>> {gem unpack} SOURCE0 && gem spec SOURCE0 -l --ruby > {gem_name}.gemspec
>>
>> Troy
>>
>>
>
>
> Thank you, that is a good point. I omitted it just by accident. On the
> other hand, what is the practical difference? Not sure. I should
> probably dive a bit into RubyGems code.
The -l aka --local is in default option set:
Defaults:
--local --version '>= 0' --yaml
Not sure what would be the advantage to put the -l there explicitly.
Lets keep it without -l.
Vít
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
