I know that both result to the same thing (if I remember correctly I had asked Vit about this in IRC), but I have forgotten their real difference.
My attention got caught by a comment Josef made in one of his reviews [0], saying that rubygem-foo is the new syntax. If that's the case, I would like to propose 2 changes:
a) A reference in the wiki b) An implementation for gem2rpm
I guess b) could be fairly easy by changing the templates.
By starting with these steps, there will be a push to use the new syntax from now on. What do you think?
[0]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979749#c2
Dne 19.1.2014 23:37, Achilleas Pipinellis napsal(a):
I know that both result to the same thing (if I remember correctly I had asked Vit about this in IRC), but I have forgotten their real difference.
My attention got caught by a comment Josef made in one of his reviews [0], saying that rubygem-foo is the new syntax. If that's the case, I would like to propose 2 changes:
a) A reference in the wiki b) An implementation for gem2rpm
I guess b) could be fairly easy by changing the templates.
By starting with these steps, there will be a push to use the new syntax from now on. What do you think?
Historically, the idea of rubygem(foo) was that rubygem(foo) should correspond to require 'foo'. However, I am not sure that this was always true, since this was definitely underdocumented and guidelines stated that you should provide rubygem(%{gem_name}) instead. And the question is if we should support this or not. This might be useful for some gems, where the name of gem differs from the require-able file, for example rubygem-bcrypt-ruby comes to me mind.
When we overhauled packaging guidelines during migration to Ruby 1.9.3, nobody remembered the history correctly and FPC decided to drop the note about rubygem(foo) require.
With regards to comment [0], I would argue what is new or old syntax. They are both legal as long as they are satisfied IMO.
Vít
Achilleas Pipinellis wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:37 AM +9:00:
I know that both result to the same thing (if I remember correctly I had asked Vit about this in IRC), but I have forgotten their real difference.
My attention got caught by a comment Josef made in one of his reviews [0], saying that rubygem-foo is the new syntax. If that's the case, I would like to propose 2 changes:
a) A reference in the wiki b) An implementation for gem2rpm
I guess b) could be fairly easy by changing the templates.
By starting with these steps, there will be a push to use the new syntax from now on. What do you think?
Please use syntax other interpreters do: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl#Perl_Require... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP?rd=Packaging/PHP#Requires_and_P... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml#Requires_a...
i.e. use rubygem(foo), not rubygem-foo.
Regards, Mamoru
Mamoru TASAKA wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:00 PM +9:00:
Achilleas Pipinellis wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:37 AM +9:00:
I know that both result to the same thing (if I remember correctly I had asked Vit about this in IRC), but I have forgotten their real difference.
My attention got caught by a comment Josef made in one of his reviews [0], saying that rubygem-foo is the new syntax. If that's the case, I would like to propose 2 changes:
a) A reference in the wiki b) An implementation for gem2rpm
I guess b) could be fairly easy by changing the templates.
By starting with these steps, there will be a push to use the new syntax from now on. What do you think?
Please use syntax other interpreters do: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl#Perl_Require... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP?rd=Packaging/PHP#Requires_and_P... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml#Requires_a...
i.e. use rubygem(foo), not rubygem-foo.
Additional explanation:
The idea here is that ideally like perl or so and pkgconfig(foo), etc, this type of dependency should be handled by rpmbuild _automatically_, i.e. rpmbuild automatically adds provides/requires rubygem(foo). Currently this is done by gem2rpm, however if this could be done on building rpmbuild side, it would be more appreciated.
Regards, Mamoru
Dne 20.1.2014 11:11, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Mamoru TASAKA wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:00 PM +9:00:
Achilleas Pipinellis wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:37 AM +9:00:
I know that both result to the same thing (if I remember correctly I had asked Vit about this in IRC), but I have forgotten their real difference.
My attention got caught by a comment Josef made in one of his reviews [0], saying that rubygem-foo is the new syntax. If that's the case, I would like to propose 2 changes:
a) A reference in the wiki b) An implementation for gem2rpm
I guess b) could be fairly easy by changing the templates.
By starting with these steps, there will be a push to use the new syntax from now on. What do you think?
Please use syntax other interpreters do: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl#Perl_Require...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP?rd=Packaging/PHP#Requires_and_P...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml#Requires_a...
i.e. use rubygem(foo), not rubygem-foo.
Additional explanation:
The idea here is that ideally like perl or so and pkgconfig(foo), etc, this type of dependency should be handled by rpmbuild _automatically_, i.e. rpmbuild automatically adds provides/requires rubygem(foo). Currently this is done by gem2rpm, however if this could be done on building rpmbuild side, it would be more appreciated.
It is doable, but we should still clarify what does it mean, i.e.
1) is it rubygem(%{gem_name}) or 2) should it be rubygem(typical_file_you_should_require), where for some gems, there might be more of these provides.
I think it would be good to do it for F21, since I am going to propose guideline changes anyway. Hope I'll find some time to play with this.
Vít
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:54 PM +9:00:
Dne 20.1.2014 11:11, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Mamoru TASAKA wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:00 PM +9:00:
Achilleas Pipinellis wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:37 AM +9:00:
I know that both result to the same thing (if I remember correctly I had asked Vit about this in IRC), but I have forgotten their real difference.
My attention got caught by a comment Josef made in one of his reviews [0], saying that rubygem-foo is the new syntax. If that's the case, I would like to propose 2 changes:
a) A reference in the wiki b) An implementation for gem2rpm
I guess b) could be fairly easy by changing the templates.
By starting with these steps, there will be a push to use the new syntax from now on. What do you think?
Please use syntax other interpreters do: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl#Perl_Require...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP?rd=Packaging/PHP#Requires_and_P...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml#Requires_a...
i.e. use rubygem(foo), not rubygem-foo.
Additional explanation:
The idea here is that ideally like perl or so and pkgconfig(foo), etc, this type of dependency should be handled by rpmbuild _automatically_, i.e. rpmbuild automatically adds provides/requires rubygem(foo). Currently this is done by gem2rpm, however if this could be done on building rpmbuild side, it would be more appreciated.
It is doable, but we should still clarify what does it mean, i.e.
- is it rubygem(%{gem_name}) or
- should it be rubygem(typical_file_you_should_require), where for some
gems, there might be more of these provides.
I think it would be good to do it for F21, since I am going to propose guideline changes anyway. Hope I'll find some time to play with this.
We can just start with what "gem" firstly does, I think it is a good start for adding automated provides/requires,i.e. check specification based dependency and automatically add provides/requires, almost the same as current gem2rpm does.
rubygem(typical_file_you_should_require) seems much harder to implement, as far as I remember once python packages tried to do this, however it gave up. I think we can start with what may be implemented easier.
Regards, Mamoru
Hi,
rubygem(typical_file_you_should_require) seems much harder to implement, as far as I remember once python packages tried to do this, however it gave up. I think we can start with what may be implemented easier.
then if rubygem(foo) and rubygem-foo shall be equivalent I would rather see an agreement that we will recommend to use only one of those.
Josef Stribny wrote, at 01/20/2014 11:38 PM +9:00:
Hi,
rubygem(typical_file_you_should_require) seems much harder to implement, as far as I remember once python packages tried to do this, however it gave up. I think we can start with what may be implemented easier.
then if rubygem(foo) and rubygem-foo shall be equivalent I would rather see an agreement that we will recommend to use only one of those.
So use rubygem(foo) as I said before.
Mamoru TASAKA wrote, at 01/21/2014 06:06 AM +9:00:
Josef Stribny wrote, at 01/20/2014 11:38 PM +9:00:
Hi,
rubygem(typical_file_you_should_require) seems much harder to implement, as far as I remember once python packages tried to do this, however it gave up. I think we can start with what may be implemented easier.
then if rubygem(foo) and rubygem-foo shall be equivalent I would rather see an agreement that we will recommend to use only one of those.
So use rubygem(foo) as I said before.
Additional explanation:
Specification based requires / provides is much similar with pkgconfig(foo), and we actually changed the policy that we must use pkgconfig(foo) for BR, rather than using bar-devel.
Regards, Mamoru
Hi,
Following the discussion about format of requires/provides, I have finally had time to implement them. Please take a look at [1].
Here are some random thoughts bout the generators and associated stuff:
* Currently, unless we cleanup all gems, the provides/requires in RPM will be duplicated. One set will be provided by the generator while the other will come from the .spec file. I opened ticket for RPM [2] requesting post-filtering of requires/provides, but this is not gonna save us. On the other hand, duplicated provides/requires should cause no harm.
* gem2rpm should be updated and should not generate the Requires/Provides
* Packaging guidelines should be updated.
* We will need to learn how to filter/adjust the automatic requires/provides in some cases. This should be probably documented in guidelines as well.
* The generator is more or less taken from gem2rpm. Although in theory, it could be dropped from its codebase, currently and for the foreseeable future, it should stay there due to backward compatibility (and it could be used for generating BR as well). This introduces code duplication. Any thoughts how to get rid of it?
* It would be nice to have some test suite for the generators. It would be probably good to thing about testsuite for our operating_system.rb as well. Not sure how to organize it.
* Would it be useful to establish some "independent" upstream project for all this stuff, something like javapackages-tools? We could have chicken-egg issues later with bootstraping etc.
* What about ruby generators?
* Should we try to generate also some more precise provides, e.g. you have to require 'bcrypt' from rubygem-bcrypt-ruby. In bundler, you have to specify this explicitly, so this might be useful provide. How to tackle this?
This is probably not exhaustive list of associated issues, so any feedback is appreciated.
Vít
[1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/commit/?h=private-ruby-2.1&i... [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070721
Dne 20.1.2014 11:54, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 20.1.2014 11:11, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Mamoru TASAKA wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:00 PM +9:00:
Achilleas Pipinellis wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:37 AM +9:00:
I know that both result to the same thing (if I remember correctly I had asked Vit about this in IRC), but I have forgotten their real difference.
My attention got caught by a comment Josef made in one of his reviews [0], saying that rubygem-foo is the new syntax. If that's the case, I would like to propose 2 changes:
a) A reference in the wiki b) An implementation for gem2rpm
I guess b) could be fairly easy by changing the templates.
By starting with these steps, there will be a push to use the new syntax from now on. What do you think?
Please use syntax other interpreters do: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl#Perl_Require...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP?rd=Packaging/PHP#Requires_and_P...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml#Requires_a...
i.e. use rubygem(foo), not rubygem-foo.
Additional explanation:
The idea here is that ideally like perl or so and pkgconfig(foo), etc, this type of dependency should be handled by rpmbuild _automatically_, i.e. rpmbuild automatically adds provides/requires rubygem(foo). Currently this is done by gem2rpm, however if this could be done on building rpmbuild side, it would be more appreciated.
It is doable, but we should still clarify what does it mean, i.e.
- is it rubygem(%{gem_name}) or
- should it be rubygem(typical_file_you_should_require), where for some
gems, there might be more of these provides.
I think it would be good to do it for F21, since I am going to propose guideline changes anyway. Hope I'll find some time to play with this.
Vít _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi
- Currently, unless we cleanup all gems, the provides/requires in RPM
will be duplicated. One set will be provided by the generator while the other will come from the .spec file. I opened ticket for RPM [2] requesting post-filtering of requires/provides, but this is not gonna save us. On the other hand, duplicated provides/requires should cause no harm.
It will be a little ugly, but it should work.
- We will need to learn how to filter/adjust the automatic
requires/provides in some cases. This should be probably documented in guidelines as well.
I think there needs to be a possibility to change those auto-requires/provides if necessary, but overall I really like the idea of dropping this explicit requires, it was just a duplication anyways.
Josef
Dne 6.3.2014 16:40, Josef Stribny napsal(a):
Hi
- Currently, unless we cleanup all gems, the provides/requires in RPM
will be duplicated. One set will be provided by the generator while the other will come from the .spec file. I opened ticket for RPM [2] requesting post-filtering of requires/provides, but this is not gonna save us. On the other hand, duplicated provides/requires should cause no harm.
It will be a little ugly, but it should work.
- We will need to learn how to filter/adjust the automatic
requires/provides in some cases. This should be probably documented in guidelines as well.
I think there needs to be a possibility to change those auto-requires/provides if necessary, but overall I really like the idea of dropping this explicit requires, it was just a duplication anyways.
Of course there is a way [1], we just have yet no experience in what cases we will need it.
Vít
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Achilleas Pipinellis -
Josef Stribny -
Mamoru TASAKA -
Vít Ondruch