Shawn,
I spent some time with rubygem-idn and here [1] is the srpm I came up
with. Unfortunately, the test suite fails, probably due to changes in
encoding in Ruby 1.9. I would appreciate if you can continue where I
ended and make the test suite pass.
I also worked a bit on the packaging guidelines [2], and I would
appreciate any feedback.
Vit
[1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-idn-0.0.2-4.fc18.src.rpm
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby#Binary_Extension_Fails_to_Build
Dne 9.2.2012 09:05, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 9.2.2012 02:14, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
This is a problem that Vit has been trying to solve some time ago,
here is
the discussion with suggested steps (not optimal, but there is
probably no
better way, yet) [1].
This is going be a problem. Do we have any official approach? I would
rather
not repackage the gem manually, this is a serious problem for me
right now.
Actually you are the first lucky one who needs this. After rebuilding
most of the packages we really did not meet other gem which needs this
treatment. There will be no other/better way then the one described in
link posted by bkabrda.
However, as we need some good example how to do it for guidelines and
FPC, I'll take a look at this case. Do you have already patch which
fixes the gem? Are you doing to use this one [1]?
Vit
[1] https://github.com/mihu/idn
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
