[Bug 226381] Merge Review: ruby

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: ruby


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226381





------- Additional Comments From tagoh at redhat.com  2007-12-24 19:51 EST -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> For 1.8.6.111-3.fc9:
> (I maybe missing something else. I will recheck this)
> 
> ? License
>   - I always wonder about this.
>     What does "Ruby" license mean? My understanding is that

See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing for what we should describe in .spec.

>     when we talk "this is licensed under the same license of
>     Ruby", this means GPL+ and (Ruby original license), is this
>     wrong?

No, Ruby License is actually different one to GPL. Ruby is just licensed under
Ruby License or GPL. they just can choose one of them.

>     However OpenSSL license is GPLv2 incompatible (I don't know
>     for GPLv3). Is this part legally okay?

AFAIUC if someone who wants to use OpenSSL on Ruby, they need to apply Ruby
License instead of GPL. if necessary, I'll package it separately.

> * SourceURL
>   - Please don't comment out Source[1-3] full URL (rpmbuild
>     support full URLs for not only Source0).
>     (Or you just uncompressed and then recompressed again?
>      If so, we want to use what is given from upstream directly
>      as much as possible)

That was odd to reduce the package size. Source1 is already dead link. I'll be
back to the upstream one if it's preferred.

> * Requires
>   - Does not ruby-tcltk require ruby? At least
>     /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/tkextlib/pkg_checker.rb (on i386) contains

Thanks for catching this up. apparently it doesn't need to be shipped. and
basically any libraries there isn't supposed to be run directly. otherwise those
should be moved under /usr/bin. the main reason that not requiring ruby in
general is, they could be used without ruby, but with mod_ruby and another ruby
implementation etc.

> ! Argument list too long.
>   - When I try normal rpmbuild as my default user, it stops with
>     "Argument list too long" error.

I don't see this one. xargs is supposed to do that. isn't it your shell bug?

Otherwise will be fixed in next build.

(In reply to comment #9)
> By the way, is it possible to remove config.h or at least rename
> it?

No, it isn't, as I said before.



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.