Dne 23. 12. 22 v 8:46 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/12/22 17:48:Hi,I am back again with yet another update, this time to 6af6857ecf. The changes are in dist-git and the build is here:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95591030I am still surprised that this cycle, there are not big breakages. So there is nothing to report from my side, except that I am not convinced that the change to the tilde versions works as it is supposed to. I think that the `%{?development_release}` would need to be added not just to the Ruby version, but also to the subpackages and therefore to the Provides, etc. So if anybody tries update from the previous snapshot, please let me know your practical experience.VítWell, looks like "my" copr build says that (some of) rubygem-foo pkgs building C extensions began to FTBFS with 20221223git7d700a9f5d, while 20221220git8f081d4d0 they were okay.For examples:rubygem-glib2 https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mtasaka/rubygem-newruby-test/package/rubygem-glib2/ rubygem-nokogiri https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mtasaka/rubygem-newruby-test/package/rubygem-nokogiri/ rubygem-rdiscount https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mtasaka/rubygem-newruby-test/package/rubygem-rdiscount/Looking at the build logs, I strongly believe this is because of this change:https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/0a9544ce4ab86963dde0f3ad0b489b6a354cc8b3Subject: [PATCH] [rubygems/rubygems] Cleanup intermediate artifacts after installing built extensions https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/commit/98b6a959bdSo building C extensions, .so is removed from ext/ directory, so at %check, for example doing $ ruby -Ilib:ext:. -e 'Dir.glob........' cannot find required .so file and %check fails.So what should Fedora side srpm do? - Revert the above change on ruby (and also rubygems)- Or make every rubygem-foo pkgs building C extension to use -I%{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri} instead of -Iext
The latter is the approach we use on various places (just random references):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-bcrypt/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-bcrypt.spec#_52 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-bindex/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-bindex.spec#_57 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-json/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-json.spec#_92I don't think that `-Iext` was ever optimal, because that is never the place from where the extension is used. It would be even much better, if RubyGems used out of source build, somewhere in `/tmp` or so (there is still room for improvement :)).
VítP.S. it is getting closer to the release, time for subtle breaking changes :D
Regards, Mamoru _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.orgFedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelinesList Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
