[Rpm-maint] Planning for rpm 4.13.0 (-rc2)

[Thierry Vignaud]

On 17 October 2016 at 11:42, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at laiskiainen.org> wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 12:30 PM, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
>>
>> On 17 October 2016 at 10:10, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at laiskiainen.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What is the chance to get [1, 2] into the release? I mildly remember,
>>>> that once I was offered to get this patch into Fedora, but that never
>>>> materialized and now it is almost a year. I don't think this is
>>>> controversial change which should make anything break.
>>>>
>>>> Thx for considering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vít
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/27
>>>> [2]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/89d1dd0a7c63c7497d334e9f240ce7e36ca89434
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, that has actually been in Mageia for over a year so it's certainly
>>> gotten its share of soak-time (so at least it's not breaking anything
>>> else)
>>> and people are probably depending on it in Mageia so it'd be a reasonable
>>> candidate.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it's been here at least in Mageia from much more earlier:
>>
>> http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/rpm/current/SOURCES/rpm-4.6.1-setup-rubygems.patch?view=markup&pathrev=343
>>
>> I think the original patch went in in October 2010, previously we were
>> using a separate %gem_unpack macro
>>
>> But it's not the same implementation as the one that has been merged
>> in master. Mageia one is:
>>
>> http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/rpm/current/SOURCES/rpm-4.12.90-setup-rubygems.patch?revision=860276&view=markup
>
>
> Oh, I wasn't aware there were two implementations, I just assumed its the
> same implementation. Thanks for pointing this out, but it does mean the
> upstream implementation is not real-world tested so its not 4.13.0 material.
> In this circumstance anyway. Such minor enhancements are perfectly welcome
> in 4.13.1 though once we get there.
>
>>
>> But if it works the same, Mageia will be happy to drop one more patch :-)
>
>
> Since you obviously have existing users for the feature, please test the
> upstream patch with your packages and see what if anything is
> missing/broken. Me, I've no clue about Ruby business :)

@Pascal: could you run an autobuild
(http://pkgsubmit.mageia.org/autobuild/) with 2 packages from a custom
repo/medium?
You would need the following packages:
- rpm: just replace Patch2006 with 0001-Add-RubyGems-support.patch
generated by running:
git clone https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm.git
git format-patch 89d1dd0a7c63c7~1..89d1dd0a7c63c7

- ruby-RubyGems (apply rubygems.macros.diff to SOURCE1:rubygems.macros)
(patch is in the previous mail I CC:ed you)

Then if all packages build smoothly, we can as well switch to the upstream patch

You could restrict the autobuild to ruby* packages in order to speed it up.
WDYT?