Hello, again:
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/19/2011 09:43 PM +9:00:
- Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now?
Are you referring to my TODO [2]?
Exactly.
Since this is really tricky.
I agree that, if I claim that the RI documentation is platform specific, it
should go into the %{_libdir},
on the other side this is bug IMO and I believe that it was also agreed by
upstrem.
I don't think ri documents should be arch-dependent, either. The problem is that
currently they really are. Someone can say "so for now they must be moved to
%_libdir until bugs gets fixed", others can say it need not.
- build.log just shows:
--------------------------------------------------
compiling main.c
compiling dmydln.c
compiling dmyencoding.c
compiling version.c
--------------------------------------------------
or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific compilation flags
are
passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that we can
see what commands are actually executed during build.
You are right that build of 1.8.7 was more verbose. However I can't see any
difference in configuration or make flags. I'll try to take a look into it but
I can't promise.
- Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also
"cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults"
in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p".
Is it required at all? It is not used even in %install of 1.8.7, but there
might be different reason.
However there is guideline [5], so it is probably good idea.
Please check if timestamps on installed files are correctly kept
(showing verbose build log will also make it easier to check this).
- include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately
packaged on Fedora.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432
Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma?
If not, what prevents it?
This is though. I remember this lengthy discussion [4] about (not only)
oniguruma and from that,
This discussion seems to be about using origuruma with ruby 1.8.x.
I had the feeling that the upstream version is not compatible with Ruby.
Moreover, I checked the latest sources from Fedora and from Ruby and they
differs.
I cannot imagine to patch Ruby to support the upstream library, although we can
try
to open request upstream? What do you think?
Well,
- First of all I don't know where origuruma upstream is working. If they
(oniguruma
upstream) make changes on origuruma bundled in ruby tarball, they should also
update origuruma tarball and release new one.
- Bundling such external software like origuruma is almost forbidden on Fedora
(see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 : why
rubygem-passenger
cannot be in Fedora currently) and we should advise ruby upstream to use
external
oniguruma (or to add support to use external oniguruma).
Regards,
Mamoru
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
