Dne 10.11.2015 v 16:09 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:vondruch@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> For a long time, I thought that it would be interesting to have .gem
> expansion support in %setup macro. This would simply our .spec
> files a
> bit. Finally, I gave a go to this idea and proposed this to RPM
> upstream
> [1]. Please let me know (preferably via the PR) if you can
> foresee any
> issues with this approach.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
> [1]
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/27
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> <mailto:ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>
>
> Hi Vit,
> I think this is a great idea. Since the instructions for prep of
> rubygems have settled down for a couple years I think now is the time
> to do it.
>
> I do have one question.
> If I am reading the code right you have the equivalent of
> {gem unpack} SOURCE0 && gem spec SOURCE0 --ruby > {gem_name}.gemspec
>
> Why aren't you using the -l in the gem spec portion?
> Shouldn't it be
>
> {gem unpack} SOURCE0 && gem spec SOURCE0 -l --ruby > {gem_name}.gemspec
>
> Troy
>
>
Thank you, that is a good point. I omitted it just by accident. On the
other hand, what is the practical difference? Not sure. I should
probably dive a bit into RubyGems code.
The -l aka --local is in default option set:
Defaults:
--local --version '>= 0' --yaml
Not sure what would be the advantage to put the -l there explicitly.
Lets keep it without -l.
Vít