[Fedora-packaging] Stupid question

Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip at kanarip.com
Tue Feb 3 17:14:27 UTC 2009

Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip at kanarip.com> wrote:
>> I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first
>> core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
>> Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to
>> ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not
>> upstream.
>> I'm not sure what this fixes, in that ruby will build without the patch as
>> well. I've searched through the logs to see if there's some kind of warning
>> related to socket.c, but there is none from what I can tell.
>> I'd love to learn what this patch does and then try and get upstream to
>> accept it (so that I have less work to do). Can someone on this list help me
>> with this?
> For a while back in February of '08 was some breakage in glibc where
> NI_MAXHOST wasn't defined anymore (at least not under the usual
> circumstances that Fedora programs are/were compiled), thus breaking
> the build of many different packages, Ruby included.  From the looks
> of that patch the Ruby developers anticipated NI_MAXHOST being
> undefined, but flubbed the fixup.  Certainly seems like the patch
> should be upstream to me...


It turns out it is upstream already, just not in 1.8.7-p72. I feel 
confident to ship the patch now ;-)

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list