On Friday, February 10, 2012 09:40:39 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > Dne 10.2.2012 05:04, Shawn Starr napsal(a): > > 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. > > Are you sure you applied the fixes on the correct place? It seems that > method #toUnicode should really return UTF-8, so the fix should be in > the method itself, not in the test. The same apply for #toASCII. >
I can fix that and spin another build, good point. > > 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). > You see, the patch for addressable confirms my suspicion. > for addressable, yes. I will fix it in rubygem-idn to the method vs test cases. > > Vit > > >> 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_Fail > >> s_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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
