On 16/05/11 at 23:06 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Antonio Terceiro > <terce...@softwarelivre.org> wrote: > >> > http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-ruby-extras/gem2deb.git;a=commitdiff;h=fb547d84b5545ac5dee8de9023ccae51d5cf61da > >> > > >> > So you should be good by overriding install_files_and_build_extensions > >> > on your new class. > >> > >> I've done that, and did as well for tests so far, but just stating it > >> is currently not supported. I need to dig a little more into this. > >> > >> > after (or instead of) `setup.rb clean`, shouldn't you also do `setup.rb > >> > distclean`? > >> > (I think ruby-pkg-tools does something like that) > >> > >> I've changed to distclean. > >> > >> I've attached an archive of git format-patch, to avoid blundering too > >> much with the master repository. > > > > That looks nice! > > Cool ! > > > I didn't understand, however, why you overrode run_tests to disable them: > > as far as I can see, the way of running the package tests used in > > the main dh_ruby must work ok. > > I'm unsure about that: the testrunner.rb uses the source directory > as library path for loading the test files. Of course, this will work > for pure ruby libraries, but, at least for setup.rb, it will fail > miserably for built extensions, since the build cleans up the built > files in the source after installing. I'm wondering: shouldn't > testrunner.rb rather use debian/package/usr/lib/vendor_ruby and co as > library path ? This is guaranteed to work, at least if tests are run > *after* installation (which is the case) ?
Mmmh, yes, probably. Could you experiment with the idea and provide a patch? :) L. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110517061624.ga21...@xanadu.blop.info
