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