rubygems rpm spec file
 

I built the following rpm.* It
requires ruby and ruby-libs to build.* This version does not install
the built-in rdoc and ri files for rubygems, as that requires a little
more work than I have time for right now.



http://folkwolf.net/rubygems-1.3.1-1.src.rpm



HTH



Matt




Summary: RubyGem
Name: rubygems
Version: 1.3.1
Release: 1
requires: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5
Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tgz
License: GPL
URL: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/45905/
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildPreReq: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5
Group: Development/Tools
%description
Ruby Gems

%prep
%setup -q

%install
ruby setup.rb --destdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr --no-rdoc --no-ri

cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find . -type d | sed '1,2d;s,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) \%dir ,' > $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}
find . -type f | sed 's,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) ,' >> $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}
find . -type l | sed 's,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) ,' >> $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}

%files -f ../file.list.%{name}
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

Matt Rose wrote:
> requires: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5

Are you sure about that? I only have

Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8

in my spec (which is for 1.1.1 though)

> Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tgz
> License: GPL

I think naming both licenses is correct here:

License: Ruby License/GPL

> BuildPreReq: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5

Hmmm. Why PreReq?

I have BuildRequires: ruby, ruby-irb, ruby-rdoc in my spec.

> %description
> Ruby Gems

RubyGems is the Ruby standard for publishing and managing third party
libraries.

Yours is a tad short :)

> cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> rm -rf %{buildroot}

Hmmm. Either or, I think. Not both in one spec file :)

I also have a wad of rubygems which are packaged and should be published
somewhere (like a complete rails 2.1 environment, mod_passenger and other
stuff).

Cheers,

Ralph_____________________________________________ __
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

Ralph Angenendt wrote:

Matt Rose wrote:


requires: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5



Are you sure about that? I only have

Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8

in my spec (which is for 1.1.1 though)



I don't think it actually requires ruby-libs, but the way I figure,
they're going to need the ruby stdlib if they're going to actually
install most gems.* Better to set up the expectation in advance, IMO.






Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tgz
License: GPL



I think naming both licenses is correct here:

License: Ruby License/GPL



BuildPreReq: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5



Hmmm. Why PreReq?

I have BuildRequires: ruby, ruby-irb, ruby-rdoc in my spec.



Because I forgot the syntax for BuildRequires




%description
Ruby Gems



RubyGems is the Ruby standard for publishing and managing third party
libraries.

Yours is a tad short :)



cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
rm -rf %{buildroot}



Hmmm. Either or, I think. Not both in one spec file :)




good idea.



I also have a wad of rubygems which are packaged and should be published
somewhere (like a complete rails 2.1 environment, mod_passenger and other
stuff).

Cheers,

Ralph


we could put them up on github or I could host a publically available
subver repo for ruby gem rpms, or something.* It would be nice to have
a central repo for exactly this kind of stuff.** I wonder how hard it
would be to do a gem2rpm script, like perl has with cpan2rpm.



Matt



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

Whoops, see comments in the previous email.* Attached is the updated
spec



Matt



Ralph Angenendt wrote:

Matt Rose wrote:


requires: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5



Are you sure about that? I only have

Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8

in my spec (which is for 1.1.1 though)



Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tgz
License: GPL



I think naming both licenses is correct here:

License: Ruby License/GPL



BuildPreReq: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5



Hmmm. Why PreReq?

I have BuildRequires: ruby, ruby-irb, ruby-rdoc in my spec.



%description
Ruby Gems



RubyGems is the Ruby standard for publishing and managing third party
libraries.

Yours is a tad short :)



cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
rm -rf %{buildroot}



Hmmm. Either or, I think. Not both in one spec file :)

I also have a wad of rubygems which are packaged and should be published
somewhere (like a complete rails 2.1 environment, mod_passenger and other
stuff).

Cheers,

Ralph






Summary: RubyGem
Name: rubygems
Version: 1.3.1
Release: 1
requires: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5
Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tgz
License: Ruby License/GPL
URL: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/45905/
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: ruby >= 1.8.5, ruby-libs >= 1.8.5
Group: Development/Tools

%description
RubyGems is the Ruby standard for publishing and managing third party libraries

%prep
%setup -q

%install
ruby setup.rb --destdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr --no-rdoc --no-ri

cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find . -type d | sed '1,2d;s,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) \%dir ,' > $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}
find . -type f | sed 's,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) ,' >> $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}
find . -type l | sed 's,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) ,' >> $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}

%files -f ../file.list.%{name}
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

Matt Rose wrote:

I also have a wad of rubygems which are packaged and should be published
somewhere (like a complete rails 2.1 environment, mod_passenger and other
stuff).


a Ruby SIG would be good to get going, we ( ralph and I ) spoke about
this a while back. I have about 4 dozen rpms that could also go into this.


we could put them up on github or I could host a publically available
subver repo for ruby gem rpms, or something. It would be nice to have a
central repo for exactly this kind of stuff. I wonder how hard it
would be to do a gem2rpm script, like perl has with cpan2rpm.


projects.centos.org solves this very problem :D

But we would need a standard for the specs to get adopted, and working
with atleast the Fedora standards would be a good place to start.


So, is there interest in the ruby SIG ? and who wants to take ownership
of spec sanity checking ?


--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

Karanbir Singh wrote:



projects.centos.org solves this very problem :D

But we would need a standard for the specs to get adopted, and working
with atleast the Fedora standards would be a good place to start.

So, is there interest in the ruby SIG ? and who wants to take ownership
of spec sanity checking ?

--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq



I'd be happy to take ownership,
it's obviously something that's been on my mind lately.* I think it'd
be a good thing for both ruby and CentOS.



Matt




_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

Matt Rose wrote:
central repo for exactly this kind of stuff. I wonder how hard it
would be to do a gem2rpm script, like perl has with cpan2rpm.


there already is a gem2rpm script, and it works fine. I've churned the
entire gem base in Feb 2008 to prove it. Some of the ri handing isnt
ideal, but it works or is simple to patch out. I was lazy and only
really wanted to sanity check and did not mind either ri or rdoc in the
roots.


--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

Karanbir Singh wrote:

Matt Rose wrote:


central repo for exactly this kind of stuff. I wonder how hard it
would be to do a gem2rpm script, like perl has with cpan2rpm.



there already is a gem2rpm script, and it works fine. I've churned the
entire gem base in Feb 2008 to prove it. Some of the ri handing isnt
ideal, but it works or is simple to patch out. I was lazy and only
really wanted to sanity check and did not mind either ri or rdoc in the
roots.



The ri and rdoc handling needs some special care.* IMHO the doc tree
should go in /usr/share/doc, and I don't think that gems, or ruby are
built to do that.** I think that some kind of docs should go in
/usr/share/doc (I hate installing rpms with no documentation), but
installing docs in the correct location takes a little bit of brain
scratching.



I found the gem2rpm rpm, I'll play with it in the coming days.



Matt




--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel






_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

On 11/18/2008 07:54 PM, Matt Rose wrote:

Whoops, see comments in the previous email. Attached is the updated spec

I've cleaned up a bit the spec, making it closer to the Fedora
guidelines. It still has some errors because the list of files passed to
% files includes the following files and directories which are already
owned by other packages (and with no chance to be left unowned, should
rubygems be uninstalled):

/usr/bin (owned by filesystem)
/usr/lib (owned by filesystem)
/usr/lib/ruby (owned by ruby-libs)
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby (owned by ruby-libs)
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 (owned by ruby-libs)


And last but not least, I think that a %test section would be nice to be
included. Unfortunately I know no ruby at all, so I cannot create this
part of the spec for you. And I am to busy^H^H^H^Hlazy to read the docs now.


Hope this helps.
Summary: RubyGem
Name: rubygems
Version: 1.3.1
Release: 1
Requires: ruby-libs >= 1.8.5
Source0: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/45905/%{name}-%{version}.tgz
License: Ruby or GPLv2+
URL: http://rubyforge.org/
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: ruby >= 1.8.5
Group: Development/Tools

%description
RubyGems is the Ruby standard for publishing and managing third party libraries

%prep
%setup -q

%build
#nothing to build

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
ruby setup.rb --destdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr --no-rdoc --no-ri

cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find . -type d | sed '1,2d;s,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) \%dir ,' > $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}
find . -type f | sed 's,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) ,' >> $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}
find . -type l | sed 's,^.,\%attr(-,root,root) ,' >> $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name}

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files -f ../file.list.%{name}
%doc ChangeLog GPL.txt LICENSE.txt README TODO doc/

%changelog
* Tue Nov 18 2008 Matt Rose <real mail should be here but I did not fill it on purpose> 1.3.1-1
- First version
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

rubygems rpm spec file
 

Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
I've cleaned up a bit the spec, making it closer to the Fedora
guidelines. It still has some errors because the list of files passed to
% files includes the following files and directories which are already
owned by other packages (and with no chance to be left unowned, should
rubygems be uninstalled):

/usr/bin (owned by filesystem)
/usr/lib (owned by filesystem)


that 'find' has to die. the only way to put it is 'thats just wrong for
every reasons'.


- KB
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel