On 22 Dec 2011, at 07:32, "Bohuslav Kabrda" <bkabrda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed the link to the new ruby packaging draft and had a comment.
>
> Currently the guidelines suggest to do everything basically within
> prep with build and install empty.
>
Not really - the guidelines say, that you should use %prep for the gem install command
(which basically unpacks the gem into a proper directory structure) and %install to place
the files precisely where we need to under %{buildroot}.
Bohuslav,
Indeed you are correct, this has changed to some extent with this new draft where now not
eveything is done in %install which is the case in the current guidelines.
But still the question of patching still arises, for the binary extension in the gem where
would you patch it, surley the gem has to be unpacked as sepaerate step, its the only way
you can get a patch in there.
Also when i was reviewing a ruby package i had to unpack myself so that i could check the
contents of files for licensing. This is by hand then rather than the normall
"rpmbuild -bp"
Fundamentally rpms have always unpacked to source before building and installing rather
than just coverting package formats.
Ill be costructive and learn some more gem options to suggest something useful hopefully
Thanks,
Steve.
> Can it be considered to break this up into the prep build and
install
> sections.
> The gem can unpacked in prep and im hoping its possible to build and
> then install from that unpack...( i dont know how to do this or if
> is possiblE?)
>
I think that it wouldn't make much sense - the install command in %prep does
everything we need - unpacks the gem into a proper directory structure (and compiles the
binary extension, if any). This way you can use %prep to apply patches and then, if you
need to recompile a patched C extension (if any), the %build section is the place to do
it. Otherwise, I see no point in using %build section with rubygems.
> In the current situation it is not obvious how you would apply a
> patch in the rpm and probably more importly the "rpmbuild -bp",
> "rpmbuild -bc" or "rpmbuild -bi" do not have there normal
meaning.
>
>
Yes, well, if you have nothing to compile, it makes perfect sense to leave the %build
section empty, doesn't it? And you use %prep to unpack the gem and %install to place
it into a proper directory structure. What's wrong with that? I think that it works
exactly as it should.
Regards,
Bohuslav.
> --
> Steve Traylen
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig