Dne 22.2.2017 v 10:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Hello: > > ----- 元のメッセージ ----- >> 差出人: "Vít Ondruch" <vondr...@redhat.com> >> 宛先: "Ruby SIG mailing list" <ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org> >> 送信済み: 2017年2月22日, 水曜日 18:01:56 >> 件名: gcc BR >> >> Hi, >> >> No I feel ashamed that although I was lobbying for gcc BR, I never used >> it in my packages. So thank you František for doing so (I assume that >> you were forced to do so due to gcc missing in buildroot, right?). > This is perhaps not because gcc BR is actually missing in default buildroot,
I somehow accidentally omitted "not" from my remark ... so my guess was correct ... but I should thank to you Mamoru as well ;) > but because (I told to František that) this is now MUST item for packaging > guideline > (in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409355#c3 ) > > Packaging guideline itself is: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires > > (Althogh I have not modified already existing packages I maintain by myself > yet :) ) > > >> Now I just wonder, wouldn't it be better to add these requires into >> ruby-devel? Although one can BR: ruby-devel just because of the macros, >> so this would be unnecessary. >> >> So my other idea is to modify gem2rpm to add the requires whenever the >> gem has binary extension. There might be false positives as well, but >> one should review the otput of gem2rpm, so it is possible to remove the >> BR in case it is not required. >> >> Any comments? > I guess the best is to modify gem2rpm to write "BR: gcc" with commented out by > default, and add a comment which tells that when building C extension, Fedora > packaging guideline now requires "BR: gcc" line. This is now recorder in this ticket. I hope I'll mange to invest some time to gem2rpm soon. Vít [1] https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/issues/90 _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
