Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for F15

[Mohammed Morsi]

  On 01/14/2011 11:38 AM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mohammed Morsi<mmorsi at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>   On 01/14/2011 04:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>>>>      On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>>>>>       On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>>>> Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
>>>>>> live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
>>>>>> later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
>>>>>> step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails
>>>>>> development that long :/
>>>>> Yea, we went back and forth on this a few times and I believe the
>>>>> general consensus was to do the update.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dne 11.1.2011 19:11, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>>>>>>>         The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go. Please
>>>>>>> look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rails:
>>>>>>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
>>>>>>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are missing dependency on railties and bundler, where there is
>>>>>> enforced reference to rake which should not be necessary according to
>>>>>> rails gemspec: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Good catch on these, I probably already had them installed when I was
>>>>> building these rpms. I'll add them to a revised set of rpms which I'll
>>>>> send out soon. I also noticed a missing activemodel dependency for
>>>>> activeresource (which isn't a big deal since activemodel 3.0.3 has been
>>>>> submitted to Fedora) as well as a rack ~>      1.2.1 dependency for
>>>>> actionpack. The latter is a little more concerning as the current Rack
>>>>> version in Fedora is 1.1.0 and if Rails 3 doesn't play well with this
>>>>> (we can try patching rails itself) we may have to update that as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>        -Mo
>>> Well I did not have chance to go through all the specs, so it was the
>>> first thing I spotted ;)
>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ruby-sig mailing list
>>>>> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>>>> I just ran the actionpack 3.0.3 test suite against Rack 1.1.0 and
>>>> everything passed. Also the Rails 3 commit updating the dependency to
>>>> Rack 1.2.1 seems pretty trivial, the only actual code change is to a test.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/f3bb185b03e746b52a4035a6df002597d8552e74
>>>>
>>>> Of course ideally we'd just update Rack to the latest upstream release
>>>> (1.2.1) in F15. Filed a request w/ the maintainer (jeroen) to do so.
>>>>
>>>>       -Mo
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ruby-sig mailing list
>>>> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>>> I have good experience with Rack backward compatibility. Actually the
>>> Rack API is so simple that it would be surprising if it didn't work :)
>>> But what prevents us from updating Rack?
>> We don't own Rack :-)  Nor are either of us co-maintainers. Its really
>> up to the owner to push updates to the package. Now that being said,
>> there are steps which can be taken if a package goes stale for too long
>> after an update request.
>>
>>> And regarding the required versions, I am sure that Rails are pushing as
>>> new gems as they can, which is not always what we need for Fedora. It
>>> seems to me that the same case is with Arel. Rails are requesting Arel
>>> 2, but the Arel 1 should be compatible IMO (I did not tested it though).
>>>
>>>
>>> Vit
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ruby-sig mailing list
>>> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>> Good to know. I had the feeling that this was the case when I sent out
>> my original list of rubygem packages that would need to be updated to
>> work with Rails 3. Do you know of any way to test this short of running
>> each package's test suite against the older versions of the deps?
>> Perhaps we can develop some more cross-gem compatibility test cases at
>> some point. This all will get trickier as more projects use bundler as
>> we'll have to patch them to remove the specific versioned dependencies.
>>
>>    -Mo
>> _______________________________________________
>> ruby-sig mailing list
>> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>>
> I think I am an owner of Rack.  If you ask for co-maintainer status,
> I'd be happy to grant.
>
> stahnma
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig


Hrm, according to the pkg db, kanarip is the owner, and you have 
watchbugzilla / watchcommits rights but 'commit' is still awaiting 
review and you haven't applied for 'approveacls'. Is this information 
correct?

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/rubygem-rack

I applied for all the rights myself and have sent and update request to 
Jeroen. We can take it from there.

   -Mo