On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:50 PM Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dne 29. 09. 21 v 14:26 Jun Aruga napsal(a): > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > >>> Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54: > >>>> Just FYI > >>>> It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the > >>>> following build. > >>>> > >>>> https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282 > >>>> autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36 > >>>> > >>>> I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the > >>>> stream-ruby-2.6 branch too. > >>>> > >>> I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream: > >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479 > >>> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156 > >> > >> Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce > >> the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this > >> soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility. > > It seems the following patch for the ruby.spec works to build > > rpms/ruby on rawhide. Now building is in progress in my environment. > > But maybe we don't want to add the gcc-c++ dependency? > > > > ``` > > $ git diff > > diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec > > index 414eb19..c5c6edc 100644 > > --- a/ruby.spec > > +++ b/ruby.spec > > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ BuildRequires: procps > > %{?with_hostname:BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/hostname} > > BuildRequires: multilib-rpm-config > > BuildRequires: gcc > > +BuildRequires: gcc-c++ > > > I already had discussion on this topic previously: > > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17337 > > IOW there were attempts to enforce availability of C++ but the patches > were reverted. And I think there was more, but I can't find the references.
OK. Thanks for pointing out the ticket. I did read it now. I admit the `+BuildRequires: gcc-c++` is a wrong way to fix. In this case, requiring C++ compiler happens with autoconf 2.71, but doesn't happen with the 2.69. So, it is kind of a bug. Fortunately the Ruby developer syouhei agreed on your way to fix this issue adding `AC_PROG_CC`. Also talking with nobu today, he told me that he didn't want to add the C++ compiler requirement. So, we can expect the upstream is going to fix it. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156#note-8 > > BuildRequires: make > > BuildRequires: zlib-devel > > > > @@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ rm -rf ext/fiddle/libffi* > > cp -a %{SOURCE3} . > > > > %build > > -autoconf > > +./autogen.sh > > > > %configure \ > > --with-rubylibprefix='%{ruby_libdir}' \ > > ``` > > > > I am not autotols expert, but `autogen.sh` does not do more then > `autoreconf` and as far as I remember, I have tried autoreconf but I > have opted to not use it for some (forgotten) reason. Moreover: > > 1) The upstream tarball contains the config.{guess,sub} files I see I missed this point. We don't need to run the `./autogen.sh` or `autoreconf`. I think using `autogen.sh` makes the ruby.spec unnecessarily complicated. In older Rubies, there is no `autogen.sh` in the tarball. Using the `autogen.sh` also makes it harder to check the difference from older Ruby's ruby.spec. > 2) The `%{configure}` macro replaces the config.{guess,sub} files during > build OK. I didn't know that. > Therefore you would need some convincing arguments. OK. -- Jun | He - Him _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
