Re: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: Add ruby-puma.

[Ben Woodcroft]

Thanks Dave.

On 08/06/16 23:13, Thompson, David wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Ben Woodcroft <address@hidden> wrote:
> > +         (add-before 'build 'fix-gemspec
> > +           (lambda _
> > +             (substitute* "puma.gemspec"
> > +               (("git ls-files") "find * |sort"))
> > +             #t)))))
> Food for thought: With the prevalence of "git ls-files" in gemspecs
> (thanks to Bundler), maybe we should consider adding a phase to
> ruby-build-system that performs this substitution.

Sounds good to me. Next time..

> > +    (native-inputs
> > +     `(("ruby-hoe" ,ruby-hoe)
> > +       ("ruby-rake-compiler" ,ruby-rake-compiler)
> > +       ("ruby-hoe-git" ,ruby-hoe-git)
> > +       ("ruby-rack" ,ruby-rack)))
> Why are these native inputs?  rake-compiler makes sense because it's
> build-time only, but rack is most definitely a runtime dependency that
> should be in propagated-inputs.  What environment have you been using
> to test these packages?

Well, I did send this off a bit too quickly, in part because I still 
cannot get containers working after updating Ubuntu.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2016-05/msg00003.html

You were right about the inputs to hoe-git. However, as it turns out I'm 
not sure rack is needed for puma, actually. For instance this works with 
the current patch:
$ cat >/tmp/config.ru

run Proc.new { |env| ['200', {'Content-Type' => 'text/html'}, ['get rack\'d']] }

$ environment --pure --ad-hoc ruby ruby-puma -- puma /tmp/config.ru

Also, rack is not mentioned in the gemspec. WDYT?

ben