Dne 18.3.2013 14:59, Troy Dawson napsal(a):
On 03/18/2013 04:10 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have noticed, that although you are updating your packages to be
> buildable with F19, you are not doing it properly. The %gem_install
> macro, which is mentioned in guidelines, was not introduced just to
> annoy you. It should help you. You probably did not noticed, but without
> the macro, your package does not contain generated RDoc documentation
> anymore. Please fix your packages.
>
> If you want to have your life a bit easier, I prepared update script for
> you [1]. The f19.rb is doing the basic conversion. If you want to update
> also the changelog, then please use the update.rb.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
>
> [1]
https://github.com/voxik/fermig
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi Vit,
You are correct, on the packages that I fixed up I haven't been doing
that. I wasn't doing it because I still have to maintain several gems
across the Fedora's and EPEL.
You can use the same approach we used previously for other macros, e.g.
%{?!gem_install: %global %gem_install(d:n:) \
mkdir -p %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \
\
CONFIGURE_ARGS="--with-cflags='%{optflags}' $CONFIGURE_ARGS" \\\
gem install \\\
-V \\\
--local \\\
--install-dir %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \\\
--bindir .%{_bindir} \\\
--force \\\
--document=ri,rdoc \\\
%{-n*}%{!?-n:%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem} \
%{nil}
}
Or some simplified version. Please note that I did not tested this
macro, so I am pretty sure it does not work out of the box ;) Of course
if you can express your voice in this ticket [3], that wold be best :)
I looked at your scripts (very nice by the way) and then at the
documentation,[2] to try to figure out the clearest, easiest way to have
it work on both, and I had a surprise.
Did something happen to the documentation?
I would have sworn it had something on %gem_install, but now I can't
find it at all.
Good catch. Thank you for pointing out. It is just in draft [1].
Although it was approved [2] (with some comments), it is not propagated
into main guidelines page :/
Vít
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby
[2]
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/256#comment:2
[3]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788001