Vít Ondruch wrote, at 01/30/2012 05:19 PM +9:00:
> Dne 30.1.2012 07:22, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>> Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
>>>>> Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The
>>>>> guidelines
>>>>> seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current
>>>>> state
>>>>> (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
>>>>>
>>>>> %gemdir rather than %gem_dir.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ruby-sig mailing list
>>>>> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>>
>>>> I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav
>>>> Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora
>>>> 17. You
>>>> can grab the gem from
rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of
>>>> gem
>>>> from updates-testing.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other
>>>> than
>>>> F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your
>>>> command
>>>> line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17
>>>> template
>>>> will be picked up automagically.
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback is welcomed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vit
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new
>>> rubygems into
>>> rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8
>>> for rawhide
>>> doesn't have this landed yet.
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> Hi Shawn,
>> we have a special Koji target named f17-ruby, which will be merged
>> into rawhide just before branching to f17 (somewhere around February
>> 6). For instructions on how to work with that, please se [1].
>>
>
> Shawn, yes, please build your package against (and only) the tag
> mentioned above.
> You will save your/ours time with rebuild. Please make sure that all
> your dependencies
> are built there [1] prior building you packages.
>
>
> Vit
>
>
> [1]
>
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?start=0&tagID=199&orde...
Note that if you update (existing) package on f15(updates-testing),
f16(updates-testing), and f17-ruby, and without f17, you will get
"broken upgrade path" report from bodhi until f17-ruby packages get
tagged into f17, because bodhi checks f15(updates-testing),
f16(updates-testing), f17 but not f17-ruby. If you don't want to
get this noisy report, you should once build a package against f17,
bump release, and next build against f17-ruby.
Regards,
Mamoru
You are right, I did not realized that. Thank you for pointing it out.
However, since the f17-ruby will be merged into rawhide approximately in
a week, I don't think the build for f17 is worth of the effort (unless
somebody beets me to take some action ;).
Vit