Hi Antonio,
Thanks a lot for the explanations.
> Packages using the Rubygems installation layout have this working out of
> the box, so one way to fix all packages would be to convert all packages
> to using the Rubygems layout. I wanted to make dh-make-ruby use that by
> default for new packages
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:38:35AM +0100, Cédric Boutillier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking, maybe naively, that gem2deb could solve globally the
> problem with `git ls-files` instead of patching each and every gemspec
> using git.
>
> Running currently `gem contents --all
Hi,
I was thinking, maybe naively, that gem2deb could solve globally the
problem with `git ls-files` instead of patching each and every gemspec
using git.
Running currently `gem contents --all` on my system is far from listing
the files from all the Debian ruby packages installed on my system
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:10:57PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> ruby-gnome2 in Debian started way before upstream provided proper gems,
> way before rubygems.org was a thing, and maybe even before rubygems
> itself was a thing, so that's why we have been using the source tarball.
>
> if y
t; >
> > We recommend that you use *.gem to create *.deb. *.gem includes *.gemspec.
> >
> > Our *.tar.gz is provided only for old style system.
> > We recommend that users including packagers use *.gem instead of *.tar.gz.
>
> Do we follow upstream's rec
you using
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/ruby-gnome2/files/ruby-gnome2/ruby-gnome2-3.1.8/ruby-gnome2-all-3.1.8.tar.gz/download
> instead of *.gem to create *.deb?
>
> We recommend that you use *.gem to create *.deb. *.gem includes *.gemspec.
>
> Our *.tar.gz is provided only
TO_INSTALL_DESTDIR.
> > Because upstream tarball does not provide any gemspecs.
> I think the Rakefile in each submodule should have a task that can be
> called to write the gemspec to the current directory, e.g. `rake
> gemspec`. See the attached patch, you will want to send that u
ake/package-task.rb
+++ b/glib2/lib/gnome2/rake/package-task.rb
@@ -286,6 +286,13 @@ module GNOME2
def define_package_tasks
Gem::PackageTask.new(@spec) do |pkg|
end
+desc "Write #{@spec.name}.gemspec"
+ task :gemspec do
+ File.open("#{@
gt; * Request upstream to provide gemspecs.
> * Generate gemspecs by some own scripts.
>
> Which approach I should do?
I think the Rakefile in each submodule should have a task that can be
called to write the gemspec to the current directory, e.g. `rake
gemspec`. See the attached patc
Hi all,
I am working on #757464 "ruby-gnome2: Please provide rubygem meta-information".
As first step, I converted from debian/build to dh_ruby (see attached patch).
AFAICS it builds same packages compared with using debian/build,
but I think that "export make" and override_dh_auto_install are bi
Pirate Praveen wrote:
> If you can make it optional that would be great. For now I've just
> patched out the gemspec to not use olddoc. The patch and fix in rules is
> ugly.
Pushed the following to "master" of git://bogomips.org/unicorn
-8<----
Subject: [PATCH]
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:36:51AM -, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to build ruby-pg 0.19 (for diaspora 0.6.2.0 targeted
> for experimental) but in sbuild there were two gemfiles,
> pg.gemspec and pg-0.19.gemspec (second one manually created in
> debi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I'm trying to build ruby-pg 0.19 (for diaspora 0.6.2.0 targeted
for experimental) but in sbuild there were two gemfiles,
pg.gemspec and pg-0.19.gemspec (second one manually created in
debian/rules)
I added DH_RUBY_GEMSPEC to specify pg
On 9/19/16, Michael Crusoe wrote:
> While updating ruby-pathname2 from 1.7.4 to 1.8.0 I received the
> following error:
>
> dh_ruby --clean
> Invalid gemspec in [pathname2.gemspec]: uninitialized constant
> Gem::Specification::FileList
> Did you mean? FileUtils
>
Hello,
While updating ruby-pathname2 from 1.7.4 to 1.8.0 I received the
following error:
dh_ruby --clean
Invalid gemspec in [pathname2.gemspec]: uninitialized constant
Gem::Specification::FileList
Did you mean? FileUtils
FileTest
Invalid gemspec in [pathname2
Package: ruby-pg
Version: 0.18.4-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
your library is available on rubygems, but does not install a
gemspec. As such, users loading your lib as a gem can not do so.
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :&
Package: ruby-dust
Version: 0.1.7-2
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
your library is available on rubygems, but does not install a
gemspec. As such, users loading your lib as a gem can not do so.
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :&
Package: ruby-cssmin
Version: 1.0.3-4
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
your library is available on rubygems, but does not install a
gemspec. As such, users loading your lib as a gem can not do so.
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :&
Package: ruby-commander
Version: 4.4.0-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
your library could potentially install a gemspec, but does not. As
such, users loading your lib as a gem can not do so.
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :&
Package: ruby-benchmark-suite
Version: 1.0.0+git.20130122.5bded6-2
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
your library could potentially install a gemspec, but does not. As
such, users loading your lib as a gem can not do so.
--
,''`.
Package: ruby-benchmark-ips
Version: 1.2.0+git.20130609.e47e416-2
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
your library could potentially install a gemspec, but does not. As
such, users loading your lib as a gem can not do so.
--
,''`.
Package: ruby-farday
Version: 0.9.2-2
Severity: serious
Justification: Breaks rdeps when binary-rebuilt
When rebuiling ruby-faraday in unstable, the .gemspec is missing in
the built binaries. This causes rdeps to fail to resolve their
dependencies.
It's unclear how this package ever manag
Hi!
I also noticed that there are stuff in the thirdparty directory.
Even if they aren't packaged they need to be listed in
debian/copyright properly.
You can use e.g.
licensecheck -r *
to dig out licensing for files.
You should also use the libjansson package from Debian
instead of the t
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Kai Noda wrote:
> Hi Per,
>
>> * The ruby-watchman package is empty, did you forget to install it
>> in dh_auto_install target?
>
>
> That's the point, what is the correct way to generate a ruby script package
> out of the u
Hi Per,
* The ruby-watchman package is empty, did you forget to install it
> in dh_auto_install target?
That's the point, what is the correct way to generate a ruby script package
out of the upstream-provided .gemspec file? It doesn't seem to be an
appropriate way to run gem2
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Kai Noda wrote:
> Hi Per,
>
> I've been away from packaging for a while, but I've just pushed my draft
> version to the "debian" branch at
>
> https://github.com/nodakai/watchman/tree/debian
Are you a member in the pkg-ruby-extras group on Alioth?
If so, you
Hi Per,
I've been away from packaging for a while, but I've just pushed my draft
version to the "debian" branch at
https://github.com/nodakai/watchman/tree/debian
Regards,
Kai
野田 開
2015-10-13 7:18 GMT+08:00 Per Andersson :
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Kai Noda wrote:
> > Hi
Hi!
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Kai Noda wrote:
> Hi Debian Ruby team,
>
> I'm working on packaging Facebook watchman
> https://facebook.github.io/watchman/ https://github.com/facebook/watchman
Do you have the packaging available somewhere?
--
Per
Hi Debian Ruby team,
I'm working on packaging Facebook watchman
https://facebook.github.io/watchman/ https://github.com/facebook/watchman
It is basically an Autotools-based C project but within a
subdirectory ruby/ruby-watchman are Rakefile and .gemspec which allow me
1. to run "rak
ild time?
> Or is this just specific to this package and I should manually set the
> file list?
The following is based on my current undertanding of rubygems and
gem2deb. Feel free to correct me if I missed something.
This is handled by gem2deb when building the package: the gemspec is
l
Hi,
There is a problem with rails-assets-jquery-ui.gmespec
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=783508
Can this be handled by gem2deb by converting dynamic listing to static
listing at build time?
Or is this just specific to this package and I should manually set the
file list?
Tha
gg-info files for the upstream dependencies. That's definitively
> > something we want to do.
> >
> > This produces a reasonable mapping:
> >
> > apt-file search /usr/share/rubygems-integration/ | sed -e 's#/.*/##;
> > s/-[0-9.]\+.gemspec//'
This is
t to look inside python-stdeb (the equivalent of dh-make-ruby for
> Python), and it uses apt-file to determine package names by looking for
> the *.egg-info files for the upstream dependencies. That's definitively
> something we want to do.
>
> This produces a reasonable map
ames by looking for
the *.egg-info files for the upstream dependencies. That's definitively
something we want to do.
This produces a reasonable mapping:
apt-file search /usr/share/rubygems-integration/ | sed -e 's#/.*/##;
s/-[0-9.]\+.gemspec//'
--
Antonio Terceiro
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 07/02/15 at 00:33 +0530, Balasankar C wrote:
> Isn't pry one gem like rails and rake? Don't know if it is relevant.
Couldn't there be a heuristic that goes a bit further?
by default, use ruby-$GEMNAME
but if there's an executable called $GEMNAME, then use $GEMNAME
Lucas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Hello Antonio,
> I have just uploaded gem2deb 0.11 to experimental; among others, it
> includes a change that will make dh-make-ruby generate full dependency
> lines for binary packages based on the gem metadata.
wow - great work! Thanks for all your work on gem2deb
http://shandyfiles.s3-us-west
Isn't pry one gem like rails and rake? Don't know if it is relevant.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
I have just uploaded gem2deb 0.11 to experimental; among others, it
includes a change that will make dh-make-ruby generate full dependency
lines for binary packages based on the gem metadata.
This relies on mapping gem names to debian package names. We
want to do the `foo` → `ruby-foo` dance for m
* Paul Wise [140512 09:13]:
> Is this something I should file a bug about or will it be handled during
> the ruby2.0/ruby2.1 transitions?
BTW, there was already some discussion about this on d-d:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/05/msg00012.html
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 09:20 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> (Most) Packages that need reuploading/fixing can be found by
> inspecting the Ruby-Versions field, if it still says ruby1.8 or
> ruby1.9.1 then it's very likely affected.
According to a quick grep of sid main Packages there are 14
Paul,
Let me answer with a summary answer below:
* Paul Wise [140512 09:13]:
> I noted that ruby-term-ansicolor doesn't provide a gemspec file for
> ruby2.0 (just 1.9.1 and 1.8) and doesn't declare this in its
> dependencies. Simply rebuilding ruby-term-ansicolor with a
Hi all,
I noted that ruby-term-ansicolor doesn't provide a gemspec file for
ruby2.0 (just 1.9.1 and 1.8) and doesn't declare this in its
dependencies. Simply rebuilding ruby-term-ansicolor with a current
chroot of unstable will fix this it seems since it only creates one
gemspec file i
On Tuesday 06 May 2014 02:08 PM, Cédric Boutillier wrote:
> Hi Praveen,
> No objections, go ahead ;)
>
> Cédric
>
Uploaded!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi Praveen,
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:30:42PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On Sunday 04 May 2014 08:26 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > Now I found nokogiri has a dependency on mini_portile. Should we remove
> > this from nokogiri gemspec? (like we do for bundler and rubygems)?
&g
On Sunday 04 May 2014 08:26 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> Now I found nokogiri has a dependency on mini_portile. Should we remove
> this from nokogiri gemspec? (like we do for bundler and rubygems)?
I have made the changes in git, if there are no objections, I'll upload
it in ano
emove
this from nokogiri gemspec? (like we do for bundler and rubygems)?
Even if I were to not run bundle install, thin start also checks this.
Or should I just remove the Gemfile?
Thanks
Praveen
[1] Repo of my work in progress here
https://gitorious.org/debian-diaspora/diaspora
--
To UNSUBSCR
Hi Antonio,
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:01:19PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:41:07PM +0100, Cédric Boutillier wrote:
> > Since the json gem ships several gemspec files in addition to the
> > json.gemspec (in particular json_pure.gemspec). Would i
ll pull json_pure gem whereas it could have
> use the library provided by ruby-json Debian package instead.
>
> Since the json gem ships several gemspec files in addition to the
> json.gemspec (in particular json_pure.gemspec). Would it make sense to
> make gem2deb install maybe not al
nd if I want to install a gem
which depends on json_pure, which contains just the pure Ruby
implementation, rubygems will pull json_pure gem whereas it could have
use the library provided by ruby-json Debian package instead.
Since the json gem ships several gemspec files in addition to the
json.ge
49 matches
Mail list logo
