On Thursday, February 09, 2012 01:57:34 PM Shawn wrote: > Thanks Vit, seems like a good approach to me. I'll look at your SRPM today > and see what the failure is. > Hello,
This had a cascading effect.. rubygem-idn is now fixed, tests pass, although I have to do some force_encoding() to get the tests to work. Push to f17-candidate and rawhide. Because rubygem-addressable (pending review) uses GNU idn directly, this also broke with Ruby 1.9.3, I have fixed this also (see patch in SRPM). > From: "Vít Ondruch" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: February 9, 2012 8:48 AM > Subject: Re: Unable to Patch C extension gems - What approach? > > 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_t > o_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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
