Hello, all:

During reviews (and also on my package) I met with some troubles
when packaging Ruby Gems containing extension libraries written
in C.

Would you look at my proposition written in the following URL?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code

Any comments will be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Note:
I will leave from my computer soon and I will read and reply to
comments once I get back from a rest.

Regards,
Mamoru

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 02:57 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> Hello, all:
>
> During reviews (and also on my package) I met with some troubles
> when packaging Ruby Gems containing extension libraries written
> in C.
>
> Would you look at my proposition written in the following URL?
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code
>
> Any comments will be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

First off, I think this is a very good step in the right direction. A
couple of questions:

* Is the example snippet from a spec file meant only for gems with
extension libraries or for all gems ?
* Do you have a full example somewhere that follows your
recommendations ?
* As for missing files in ext/, I would be happy either way; since
the C sources for extensions are usually very small, it would be
ok to install them as part of the rubygem- package. OTOH, I
don't see much danger in leaving them out from the rubygem. The
main point of building a rubygem- RPM is so that users can
satisfy rubygem-level dependencies for other rubygems with the
RPM-installed rubygem, i.e. if gem A is packaged as an rpm, and
a user wants to 'gem install B' where B has a gem-level dep on
A, that should still work. Users shouldn't expect that a 'gem
uninstall A' would work - it would confuse RPM, anyway.

David


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Thank you for reply.

David Lutterkort wrote, at 11/04/2008 04:04 AM +9:00:

> First off, I think this is a very good step in the right direction. A
> couple of questions:
>
> * Is the example snippet from a spec file meant only for gems with
> extension libraries or for all gems ?

- Currently only with extention libraries.
If rpm created from gem file is completely noarch, gem file can be installed
under %{buildroot}%{gemdir} directly.
(However, of course, there is no problem if we first install gem files
under %{_builddir} first even if it is noarch)

> * Do you have a full example somewhere that follows your
> recommendations ?

- I tried to rewrite spec files in Fedora related to rubygem, which I put
under
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/rubygem_specs/
The easiest example is
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/rubygem_specs/rubygem-fastthread.spec

> * As for missing files in ext/, I would be happy either way; since
> the C sources for extensions are usually very small, it would be
> ok to install them as part of the rubygem- package. OTOH, I
> don't see much danger in leaving them out from the rubygem. The
> main point of building a rubygem- RPM is so that users can
> satisfy rubygem-level dependencies for other rubygems with the
> RPM-installed rubygem, i.e. if gem A is packaged as an rpm, and
> a user wants to 'gem install B' where B has a gem-level dep on
> A, that should still work. Users shouldn't expect that a 'gem
> uninstall A' would work - it would confuse RPM, anyway.

- Thanks. I added some guideline proposal about files under ext/ C codes with
reflecting your commends.

> David

Regards,
Mamoru

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 19:46 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> Thank you for reply.
>
> David Lutterkort wrote, at 11/04/2008 04:04 AM +9:00:
>
> > First off, I think this is a very good step in the right direction. A
> > couple of questions:
> >
> > * Is the example snippet from a spec file meant only for gems with
> > extension libraries or for all gems ?
>
> - Currently only with extention libraries.
> If rpm created from gem file is completely noarch, gem file can be installed
> under %{buildroot}%{gemdir} directly.
> (However, of course, there is no problem if we first install gem files
> under %{_builddir} first even if it is noarch)

Agreed. Ultimately, it would be nice to support more of this with some
stock macros; but that has nothing to do with your proposal.

> > * Do you have a full example somewhere that follows your
> > recommendations ?
>
> - I tried to rewrite spec files in Fedora related to rubygem, which I put
> under
> http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/rubygem_specs/
> The easiest example is
> http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/rubygem_specs/rubygem-fastthread.spec

Nice, just tried it and it does produce a -debuginfo, complete with
sources

> > * As for missing files in ext/, I would be happy either way; since
> > the C sources for extensions are usually very small, it would be
> > ok to install them as part of the rubygem- package. OTOH, I
> > don't see much danger in leaving them out from the rubygem. The
> > main point of building a rubygem- RPM is so that users can
> > satisfy rubygem-level dependencies for other rubygems with the
> > RPM-installed rubygem, i.e. if gem A is packaged as an rpm, and
> > a user wants to 'gem install B' where B has a gem-level dep on
> > A, that should still work. Users shouldn't expect that a 'gem
> > uninstall A' would work - it would confuse RPM, anyway.
>
> - Thanks. I added some guideline proposal about files under ext/ C codes with
> reflecting your commends.

The proposal looks really good - +1 from me.

David


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Thank you again.

David Lutterkort wrote, at 11/06/2008 12:09 PM +9:00:
> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 19:46 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> David Lutterkort wrote, at 11/04/2008 04:04 AM +9:00:
>>> * Is the example snippet from a spec file meant only for gems with
>>> extension libraries or for all gems ?
>> - Currently only with extention libraries.
>> If rpm created from gem file is completely noarch, gem file can be installed
>> under %{buildroot}%{gemdir} directly.
>> (However, of course, there is no problem if we first install gem files
>> under %{_builddir} first even if it is noarch)
>
> Agreed. Ultimately, it would be nice to support more of this with some
> stock macros; but that has nothing to do with your proposal.

Currently I have no idea about what macros can be defined here, however
for now I think we can think of this later.

> The proposal looks really good - +1 from me.

Thank you!

One more issue:
I found that even for non-Gem packages many packages use "extconf.rb"
to create C library, and in such case "export CONFIGURE_ARGS=..." method
can also be applied.

So I wrote another proposal to use this method even for non-Gem ruby packages
(on the last of :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code
)
I would want to know how you would think about this.

Regards,
Mamoru

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 17:30 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> One more issue:
> I found that even for non-Gem packages many packages use "extconf.rb"
> to create C library, and in such case "export CONFIGURE_ARGS=..." method
> can also be applied.
>
> So I wrote another proposal to use this method even for non-Gem ruby packages
> (on the last of :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code
> )
> I would want to know how you would think about this.

Yes, that makes perfect sense, and should be required for gem and
non-gem packages in the same way.

David


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

David Lutterkort wrote, at 11/07/2008 01:27 AM +9:00:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 17:30 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> One more issue:
>> I found that even for non-Gem packages many packages use "extconf.rb"
>> to create C library, and in such case "export CONFIGURE_ARGS=..." method
>> can also be applied.
>>
>> So I wrote another proposal to use this method even for non-Gem ruby packages
>> (on the last of :
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code
>> )
>> I would want to know how you would think about this.
>
> Yes, that makes perfect sense, and should be required for gem and
> non-gem packages in the same way.
>
> David

Thank you. Again I updated my proposition wiki with reflecting your comment.
I think the current contents can be included in the formal packaging guidelines.
(The URL is still:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code )

Regards,
Mamoru

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 11/07/2008 02:26 AM +9:00:
> David Lutterkort wrote, at 11/07/2008 01:27 AM +9:00:
>> Yes, that makes perfect sense, and should be required for gem and
>> non-gem packages in the same way.
>>
>> David
>
> Thank you. Again I updated my proposition wiki with reflecting your comment.
> I think the current contents can be included in the formal packaging guidelines.
> (The URL is still:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code )

I moved the wiki to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code
(old URL will be redirected) and added this to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo

Regards,
Mamoru

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 02:08 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 11/07/2008 02:26 AM +9:00:
> > David Lutterkort wrote, at 11/07/2008 01:27 AM +9:00:
> >> Yes, that makes perfect sense, and should be required for gem and
> >> non-gem packages in the same way.
> >>
> >> David
> >
> > Thank you. Again I updated my proposition wiki with reflecting your comment.
> > I think the current contents can be included in the formal packaging guidelines.
> > (The URL is still:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code )
>
> I moved the wiki to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code
> (old URL will be redirected) and added this to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo

Mamoru,

The example in your draft does not seem to match your proposal. Can you
provide an example to illustrate the new case for "Ruby Gem with
extension libraries written in C"?

Thanks,

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

Hello.

First of all, thank you for discussing my propositon and giving me
feedback.

Then;

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 11/19/2008 02:23 AM +9:00:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 02:08 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> I moved the wiki to
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code
>> (old URL will be redirected) and added this to
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo
>
> Mamoru,
>
> The example in your draft does not seem to match your proposal. Can you
> provide an example to illustrate the new case for "Ruby Gem with
> extension libraries written in C"?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~spot

It seems that the macro %{_builddir}/%{buildsubdir} seems confusing because
this macros is not used in the examples. Actually what I meant here is
- At prep stage the proper directory must be created under %_builddir to
get C code compiled under the directory, not under %buildroot

When %setup -q -c -T is used %_builddir/%name-%version is created (on
my usual usage %_builddir is ~/rpmbuild/BUILD) and %buildsubdir is then
defined as %name-%version.
- Then Gem file must be installed there at %build stage, not under %buildroot.

So as it seems that writing "%setup -q -c -T must be called" is more easy
to grasp, I wrote a revised proposition (with the original one undeleted)
[1]

And I wrote one easiest example [2]
I appreciate any feedback for this one.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGem_with_C_code
[2] http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/rubygem_specs/rubygem-fastthread.spec

Thanks,
Mamoru

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging