From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 29 02:08:30 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ruby@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E28E1065686; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:08:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stas@freebsd.org) Received: from mx0.deglitch.com (backbone.deglitch.com [78.110.53.255]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118848FC19; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.100.15.154] (unknown [216.222.83.70]) by mx0.deglitch.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FD528FC2D; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:08:22 +0400 (MSK) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\)) From: Stanislav Sedov In-Reply-To: <501483B6.6080905@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 19:08:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <501483B6.6080905@FreeBSD.org> To: Steve Wills X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485) Cc: ruby@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: patching rubygems X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:08:30 -0000 On Jul 28, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Steve Wills wrote: > I've done some more work on the issue of patching rubygems and have > produced the attached patch. I'm doing some testing by building all the > rubygem- ports on 9.0 with both 1.9 and 1.8 as default ruby. The build > with ruby 1.9 finished and the patch has only caused issues building the > following ports: > > devel/rubygem-analogger > devel/rubygem-clio > devel/rubygem-rapt > graphics/rubygem-captcha > japanese/rubygem-jpmobile > net-im/rubygem-earthquake > science/rubygem-ai4r > security/rubygem-ezcrypto > www/rubygem-scrubyt > > The batch with ruby 1.9 hasn't finished yet, but I don't expect it to > find many more issues. > > The basic idea is we extract and then build the gem rather than just > installing the built gem. This gives us a chance to patch the gem in > between the extract and build. We could for example change the > dependencies of a port of we know it works with newer version of the > other gems it depends on. This would make updating some gems much easier > and should only make the build time very slightly longer. > > We'd of course want to get an exp-run done before committing this, and > at this point I'm not sure if there's time to get this in before 9.1 or > not, but it would be nice. > > Comments? > Thanks for the patch! I like the idea, though I'm not sure if it makes sense to unpack all the gems we build. Won't it be better to unpack just those gems we have patches for, and use the old code path for gems that do not require patching? Also, I don't really like the "rm -rf $WRKDIR" line. It looks scary. Is it necessary to delete it and create it again? Besides, WRKDIR should probably be quoted, otherwise bad things might happen if it contains spaces (and probably all of the other variables too). Thanks! -- ST4096-RIPE