On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 01:21:03PM +0100, David Rodríguez wrote: > El 29/10/20 a las 13:14, Antonio Terceiro escribió: > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:17:59AM +0100, David Rodríguez wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Just to clarify why I prefer the second solution, I think what debian > > > does is shipping precompiled versions of extensions, so technically the > > > gemspec shipped in the debian should include no extensions at all. This > > > is something some upstream gems already do. Take, for example, > > > google-protobuf. It has a precompiled version for linux: > > > https://rubygems.org/gems/google-protobuf/versions/3.13.0-x86_64-linux. > > > If we fetch and unpack this package, we can see it includes the prebuilt > > > `.so` extension, but no extensions in its gemspec: > > > > > > $ gem fetch google-protobuf > > > Fetching google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux.gem > > > Downloaded google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux > > > > > > $ gem unpack google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux.gem > > > Unpacked gem: > > > '/home/deivid/Code/playground/google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux' > > > > > > $ find google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux -name '*.so' > > > google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux/lib/google/2.6/protobuf_c.so > > > google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux/lib/google/2.4/protobuf_c.so > > > google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux/lib/google/2.7/protobuf_c.so > > > google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux/lib/google/2.5/protobuf_c.so > > > google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux/lib/google/2.3/protobuf_c.so > > > > > > $ gem unpack google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux.gem --spec && grep > > > extensions google-protobuf-3.13.0-x86_64-linux.gemspec > > > extensions: [] > > > > > > I think the cleanest solution would be for debian to do the same thing. > > Fair enough. Now that I think about it, extensions is supposed to be > > a list of extensions that need to be built, so indeed dropping it from > > the gemspec included in the Debian packages make sense. > Yeah, that's exactly how I expect the `extensions` field to be interpreted.
On the other hand, our packages that already use the rubygems machinery to install, already contain the gem_build.complete file: $ dpkg -L ruby-byebug | grep complete /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/rubygems-integration/2.7.0/extensions/x86_64-linux/2.7.0/byebug-11.1.3/gem.build_complete ----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<----------------- $ cat > Gemfile source "https://rubygems.org/"; gem "byebug" ----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<----------------- $ bundle --local Resolving dependencies... Using byebug 11.1.3 Using bundler 2.2.0.rc.1 Following files may not be writable, so sudo is needed: /usr/local/bin /var/lib/gems/2.7.0 Bundle complete! 1 Gemfile dependency, 2 gems now installed. Use `bundle info [gemname]` to see where a bundled gem is installed. ----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<----------------- $ echo 'gem "ffi"' >> Gemfile ----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<----------------- $ bundle --local Could not find gem 'ffi' in any of the gem sources listed in your Gemfile. ----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<----------------- So this is only a problem for the "old-style" packages that install their stuff to vendor_ruby and don't install as gems: $ dpkg -L ruby-ffi | grep gem.build_complete (nothing) and they are quite a few packages yet: $ apt-file search vendor_ruby/ | grep '\.so$' | wc -l 164
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
