Wow, it has been year since I started this thread. Time flies.
But since I was fighting again with one revert, which was not possible to do without boostrapping, I went ahead and now I have this PR:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/72This is the case (1) I have mentioned bellow. As you can see from the patch, it turns out it is not that easy as I was expecting.
* Building `miniruby` target is not enough. * Loading of dynamic libraries is not enabled by default in miniruby. * There are required several extensions (ripper and stringio atm).* There is required some script which acts as "ruby" to glue all this together.
So based on the experience, I have several discussion topics:* Is it worth of building miniruby with all this hassle? It could be better to build "bootstrap-ruby" instead, which could be possible better interchangeable with system ruby. IOW that would bring this closer to the variant (2).
* Not sure if the miniruby configure options changes a lot. I have the feeling that the build system tries to pull in even the parts which should be unused :/
* Would it be worth of cleaning up the "miniruby" directory, to have more control about what could be used/included. I have diff of the stuff which is in tarball and what is the minimal set of files required to build miniruby at my hand, if anybody is interested.
So what did I miss? Of course I am interested in any feedback and especially in suggestions for improvement.
Vít Dne 20. 12. 19 v 17:26 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hi all, Ruby upstream is implementing more and more stuff directly in Ruby. We already had issues, that build of Ruby required Ruby when we did some modifications [1]. In subsequent ticket, one of Ruby committers said [2]:... snip ... BASERUBY is already a build requirement ... snip ... I would like to implement more of Ruby using Ruby, so miniruby maydepend on prelude one day. With recent changes, such as [3], I am afraid that the day has come. Previously, if you wanted to patch lets say "gem_prelude.rb", it was enough to patch it. But now you *need* Ruby to process it into miniprelude.c. There are possibly 4 ways out of this. 1) Build Ruby in two stages. a) build (mini)ruby, apply patches b) build Ruby using the previously built (mini)ruby. 2) Use previous version of Ruby available in Fedora to bootstrap Ruby. But this does not work ATM, at least when RubyGems are installed. And upstream is doing what they can to make RubyGems inseparable [4]. 3) Prepare patches locally and apply the required changes also to the pregenerated files. But the problem here is, that the patches might unpredictably fail between updates. I don't think that they keep any API/ABI promises for the tools used to generate those files. 4) Don't use the upstream tarball, but generate it from sources with patches integrated. I think we should probably start to take look at 1), specifically into the *miniruby* variant if that is enough. If that is done, the 2) could optionally blend in. And in the mean time use 3) because otherwise I really don't know how to integrate the ABRT hook support. I don't like 4) at all, unless we have some Fedora standardized way of doing so. On the positive side, 1(2) would allow us to stay better in line with "Pregenerated code" guidelines [5], because there is already quite a lot of pre-generated code shipped in Ruby release tarball. Thoughts? Vít [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c0513dfb8c81a228619c6142195c5117aa0d1228 [2] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15306#note-1 [3] https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2655 [4] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16431 [5] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#_pregenerated_code _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
OpenPGP_0x0CE09EE79917B87C.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
