ruby-sig August 2010

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
12 discussions

tempe fudcon2011 and ruby sig
by "Guillermo Gómez S." 08 Nov '10

08 Nov '10

This email is just to know if anyone from this SIG will be attending Tempe Fudcon2011, i will, so it would be nice to use FUDCon to promote ruby in general so i would like to start gathering info to get together there. Toshio proposed to me the idea of coding dojos for fudcons but this idea still raw. My bet is we could use fudcon to make fedora-ruby a better platform in all senses, maybe solve issues at the hackfests. krgds Guillermo ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org

4 5

Rails 2.3.8 in Rawhide
by Mo Morsi 08 Sep '10

08 Sep '10

After some vetting (thanks Mamoru) the Rails 2.3.8 rpms are Fedora ready and pushed into rawhide. Feel free to pull from there to get the latest stable 2.3.x rails build. It's too late for the F14 release and I was contemplating whether or not these should go into F14 updates. Would anyone object to this? If there is any major incompatibilities or API changes between versions, we should probably hold off to F15, but it would be nice to be able to access these sooner than that. -Mo

2 6

rails 3
by Frédéric Logier 02 Sep '10

02 Sep '10

Hi, Rails 3 is out http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2010/8/29/rails-3-0-it-s-done and it need at least ruby 1.8.7 ... So there will no way to use Rails 3 with F14 ?

5 5

redmine in Fedora
by "Guillermo Gómez S." 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

Have someone tried to pkg redmine for Fedora previously? Any comments before start working on it would be appreciate it. rgds Guillermo ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org

3 5

Reviews
by Michael Stahnke 30 Aug '10

30 Aug '10

I tried to triage many of the rubygem reviews last night. We have roughly 35 of them. I would really appreciate it if somebody could look at the review request for rubygem-rack1 for epel. Having that package in epel will fix some dependency bugs and eventually allow sinatra in epel. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617228 stahnma

1 0

Removing ruby-activerecord
by Mo Morsi 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

Hey, so I spent far too long over the last few days trying to get activerecord v2.3.8 to compile against Fedora before I realized that I was basing my attempt off the wrong package. Specifically, we have two activerecord rpms in Fedora, ruby-activerecord and rubygem-activerecord http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/ruby-activerecord/ http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rubygem-activerecord/ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ruby-activerecord https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/rubygem-activerecord Obviously, conforming to standards, rubygem-activerecord is the way to go, and I can't figure out why we are keeping ruby-activerecord around, especially since its horribly out of date (pulling version 2.0.1, the package itself has not been updated since 2007). Can we orphan / remove ruby-activerecord all together? -Mo

2 3

-doc vs -devel-doc vs -user-doc
by "Guillermo Gómez S." 15 Aug '10

15 Aug '10

keeping my wonders and researchs on building rpms and since im creating a -doc pkg for rubygem-state_machine, because it seems it's a good idea and following previous discussión about if tests are documentation or not, it came to me the question about what about devel docs vs user doc rpm pkgs (where user is a regular user who uses certain app, and devel is a programmer who uses the app or library to devel certain derivative work). Should the -devel pkg include the whole documentation files in it? or it would requires furthers splitting as -doc-devel (-devel-doc)? (not so good idea for me) If the main pkg is a user application one might think about -user-doc subpkg. if the main pkg is a library, one might think about a -devel-doc subpkg. any thoughts or policies about this? krgds Guillermo ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org

2 1

ruby-graphviz rpm vs gem
by "Guillermo Gómez S." 15 Aug '10

15 Aug '10

I have doubt here... i guess both are different sw... but look... [1] yum install graphviz-ruby vs [2] gem install ruby-graphviz should i start packaging the 2nd, what about the first? (confused) This appeared on adopting rubygem-state_machine (testing it): $ ruby unit/state_test.rb Skipping GraphViz StateMachine::State tests. `gem install ruby-graphviz` >= v0.9.0 and try again. ... Then i tried the existing rpm [1] without luck for state_machine, the i tried the gem version [2], which fixes the output warning. rgds Guillermo ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org

3 3

ruby 1.8.7p299 is now rawhide build tree
by Mamoru Tasaka 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

Hello, all: As - F14 feature freeze is tomorrow ! - Mohammed's ruby srpm was almost complete (as far as I tried using): http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13.src.rpm I slightly modified Mohammed's srpm and imported into rawhide build tree. Now it is available on http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=186570 A summary of changes from Mohammed's ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13: - Some cleanups - Make -irb, -rdoc subpackage noarch - Make dependencies between arch-dependent subpackages isa specific - Improve sample documentation gathering I hope the imported new ruby won't break things (so much). I appreciate all peoples' contributing to ruby 187 packages. Regards, Mamoru

4 11

Fwd: [ACTION REQUIRED] orphaned packages in F-14
by Mamoru Tasaka 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

Forwarding from fedora-devel mailing list The following ruby related packages are currently orphaned and will be removed from F-14 tree if no one take them. Will someone going to pick up these? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ACTION REQUIRED] orphaned packages in F-14 Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:32:23 -0400 From: Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Each release, we undergo the effort to track down owners for orphaned packages in the release, and block those orphaned packages where necessary. It's that time again for Fedora 14. The following packages are currently orphaned and exist in F-14. As you can see, there are a lot of dependencies on these packages. Please pick up these packages if you have a need for them. Unblocked orphan ruby-openid Unblocked orphan rubygem-RedCloth Unblocked orphan rubygem-gruff Unblocked orphan rubygem-rubigen Unblocked orphan rubygem-rufus-scheduler Unblocked orphan rubygem-state_machine Unblocked orphan rubygem-test-spec List of deps left behind by orphan removal: Orphan: rubygem-RedCloth rubygem-newgem requires rubygem(RedCloth) = 4.2.2 rubygem-yard requires rubygem(RedCloth) = 4.2.2 Orphan: rubygem-rubigen rubygem-newgem requires rubygem(rubigen) = 1.5.4 rubygem-templater requires rubygem(rubigen) = 1.5.4 Orphan: rubygem-test-spec rubygem-rack requires rubygem(test-spec) = 0.10.0 rubygem-snmp requires rubygem(test-spec) = 0.10.0 The script that generated this page can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts/find-unblocked-orphans.py There you can also report bugs and RFEs. ------ devel mailing list devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel ------ Regards, Mamoru

6 11

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig August 2010