Just FYI It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the following build.
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282 autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
Just FYI It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the following build.
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282 autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
Regards, Mamoru
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:52 AM Mamoru TASAKA mtasaka@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
Just FYI It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the following build.
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282 autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
OK. Thanks for the info!
Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
Just FYI It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the following build.
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282 autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility.
Vít
Regards, Mamoru _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.o... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
Just FYI It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the following build.
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282 autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility.
It seems the following patch for the ruby.spec works to build rpms/ruby on rawhide. Now building is in progress in my environment. But maybe we don't want to add the gcc-c++ dependency?
``` $ git diff diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec index 414eb19..c5c6edc 100644 --- a/ruby.spec +++ b/ruby.spec @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ BuildRequires: procps %{?with_hostname:BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/hostname} BuildRequires: multilib-rpm-config BuildRequires: gcc +BuildRequires: gcc-c++ BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: zlib-devel
@@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ rm -rf ext/fiddle/libffi* cp -a %{SOURCE3} .
%build -autoconf +./autogen.sh
%configure \ --with-rubylibprefix='%{ruby_libdir}' \ ```
Dne 29. 09. 21 v 14:26 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
Just FYI It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the following build.
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282 autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility.
It seems the following patch for the ruby.spec works to build rpms/ruby on rawhide. Now building is in progress in my environment. But maybe we don't want to add the gcc-c++ dependency?
$ git diff diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec index 414eb19..c5c6edc 100644 --- a/ruby.spec +++ b/ruby.spec @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ BuildRequires: procps %{?with_hostname:BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/hostname} BuildRequires: multilib-rpm-config BuildRequires: gcc +BuildRequires: gcc-c++
I already had discussion on this topic previously:
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17337
IOW there were attempts to enforce availability of C++ but the patches were reverted. And I think there was more, but I can't find the references.
BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: zlib-devel
@@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ rm -rf ext/fiddle/libffi* cp -a %{SOURCE3} .
%build -autoconf +./autogen.sh
%configure \ --with-rubylibprefix='%{ruby_libdir}' \
I am not autotols expert, but `autogen.sh` does not do more then `autoreconf` and as far as I remember, I have tried autoreconf but I have opted to not use it for some (forgotten) reason. Moreover:
1) The upstream tarball contains the config.{guess,sub} files
2) The `%{configure}` macro replaces the config.{guess,sub} files during build
Therefore you would need some convincing arguments.
Vít
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:50 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 29. 09. 21 v 14:26 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
Just FYI It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the following build.
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282 autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility.
It seems the following patch for the ruby.spec works to build rpms/ruby on rawhide. Now building is in progress in my environment. But maybe we don't want to add the gcc-c++ dependency?
$ git diff diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec index 414eb19..c5c6edc 100644 --- a/ruby.spec +++ b/ruby.spec @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ BuildRequires: procps %{?with_hostname:BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/hostname} BuildRequires: multilib-rpm-config BuildRequires: gcc +BuildRequires: gcc-c++
I already had discussion on this topic previously:
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17337
IOW there were attempts to enforce availability of C++ but the patches were reverted. And I think there was more, but I can't find the references.
OK. Thanks for pointing out the ticket. I did read it now. I admit the `+BuildRequires: gcc-c++` is a wrong way to fix. In this case, requiring C++ compiler happens with autoconf 2.71, but doesn't happen with the 2.69. So, it is kind of a bug.
Fortunately the Ruby developer syouhei agreed on your way to fix this issue adding `AC_PROG_CC`. Also talking with nobu today, he told me that he didn't want to add the C++ compiler requirement. So, we can expect the upstream is going to fix it. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156#note-8
BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: zlib-devel
@@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ rm -rf ext/fiddle/libffi* cp -a %{SOURCE3} .
%build -autoconf +./autogen.sh
%configure \ --with-rubylibprefix='%{ruby_libdir}' \
I am not autotols expert, but `autogen.sh` does not do more then `autoreconf` and as far as I remember, I have tried autoreconf but I have opted to not use it for some (forgotten) reason. Moreover:
- The upstream tarball contains the config.{guess,sub} files
I see I missed this point. We don't need to run the `./autogen.sh` or `autoreconf`. I think using `autogen.sh` makes the ruby.spec unnecessarily complicated. In older Rubies, there is no `autogen.sh` in the tarball. Using the `autogen.sh` also makes it harder to check the difference from older Ruby's ruby.spec.
- The `%{configure}` macro replaces the config.{guess,sub} files during
build
OK. I didn't know that.
Therefore you would need some convincing arguments.
OK.
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org