ruby-sig January 2015

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
7 discussions

Ruby 2.2
by Vít Ondruch 22 Sep '23

22 Sep '23

Hi everybody, Since Ruby 2.2 is going to be released during Christmas and -preview1 release is imminent (this Wednesday?), it is probably time to start looking into its packaging. So here is the updated .spec file [1] and scratch build [2], which can be finally build on all platforms. Sorry, no Copr for you, since Ruby's build fails there due to old RHEL kernel :/. What has changed from packaging point of view? Luckily, not much, but here are a few bullets which comes to my mind: * RPM 4.12 introduces new %load function, which is used to load RPM macros during RPM build. This allowed to drop my custom RPM macro [3]. On the other hand, you'll be able to build the Ruby only on F21+ (luckily, you should be able to build SRPM everywhere). * The RubyGems filesystem was not explicit enough, so there might be something accidentally packages. This is now more explicit, so we should be safer. * Ruby now ships with MiniTest and Test::Unit. The very good news is that they are installed so far as a regular gems. This means that you have to always specify them in your Gemfile, if you are using Bundler, but this is generally step in good direction. I hope that upstream will not change their mind :) Due to this change, we have new subpackages rubygem-test-unit (and rubygem-power_assert, which is now Test::Unit's dependency). No more %{_bindir}/testrb (but nobody is using it these days anyway, right? ;) * Some prevailing test failures were resolved, some others introduced, but hopefully they'll get resolved prior stable release. Generally, I'd say that not much has changed since 2.1, which is good news. Please test the packaging if you can and let me know about any issues you encountered. Also, if you have any other suggestions about Ruby packaging in general, what we could improve etc, this is probably good time to share. It seems that OpenSUSE guys are improving their packaging, so you might want to get some inspiration there [4, 5, 6] ;) Vít [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/log/?h=private-ruby-2.2 [2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7578843 [3] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/commit/?h=private-ruby-2.2&id=8… [4] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:darix:ruby/ruby-common [5] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:darix:ruby/ruby2.2 [6] https://github.com/openSUSE/gem2rpm/commits/master

4 19

BASH completion for Ruby
by Vít Ondruch 25 May '16

25 May '16

Hi guys, Anybody have any experience with some scripts for bash completion? Have you tried any? Should we integrate any? Just a quick googling gave me two results: https://github.com/mernen/completion-ruby https://github.com/pdkl95/rubygems-completion And there are probably others. I did not tried them yet. Have you? Do you have other/better tips? Thank you Vit

2 3

RDoc 4.2 issue
by Vít Ondruch 27 Jan '15

27 Jan '15

Hi, During the Ruby 2.2 rebuild, there was Hub package failing [1] with strange error messages: + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot Binary file /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/hub-1.12.1-3.fc22.noarch/usr/share/doc/hub/js/navigation.js.gz matches Binary file /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/hub-1.12.1-3.fc22.noarch/usr/share/doc/hub/js/search_index.js.gz matches Binary file /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/hub-1.12.1-3.fc22.noarch/usr/share/doc/hub/js/searcher.js.gz matches Found '/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/hub-1.12.1-3.fc22.noarch' in installed files; aborting error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.hP0mLS (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.hP0mLS (%install) As its turn out, this is due to RDoc, more specifically RDoc now compresses some of the JS files and it embeds full path to their location. Up until now, I know about hub and rubygem-rails which are directly affected by this issue. Nevertheless, also the other packages which were rebuild contains similar string, however we typically move the files from BUILD to BUILDDIR, so it was not caught earlier by RPM build process. This is hopefully non issue, but to completely avoid it, I reported this issue upstream with possible patch [1]. So this is just heads up in case you face similar issue. Vít [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8735161 https://github.com/rdoc/rdoc/pull/341

1 0

Ruby 2.2 landed in Rawhide
by Vít Ondruch 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

Hi everybody, Just heads up that Ruby 2.2 landed in Rawhide. We tried to rebuild every package which depends on ruby-devel and libruby.so so most of you should be fine already. Nevertheless, there are still some packages remaining, usually due to other issues then Ruby. Namely, it is (if I have not forget anything): hub rubygem-openssl_cms subversion swig uwsgi vim Please let me know if you need any assistance with fixing Ruby related build issues of your packages. Thanks Vít

3 4

Re: Ruby 2.2 landed in Rawhide
by Vít Ondruch 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

Dne 20.1.2015 v 17:44 Jason Rist napsal(a): > On 01/20/2015 08:01 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> Just heads up that Ruby 2.2 landed in Rawhide. We tried to rebuild every >> package which depends on ruby-devel and libruby.so so most of you should >> be fine already. Nevertheless, there are still some packages remaining, >> usually due to other issues then Ruby. Namely, it is (if I have not >> forget anything): >> >> hub >> rubygem-openssl_cms >> subversion >> swig >> uwsgi >> vim >> >> Please let me know if you need any assistance with fixing Ruby related >> build issues of your packages. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Vít >> > Isn't hub Go based now? > > -J > Not the one in Fedora, not sure about the upstream though .... Vít

1 0

Ruby 2.2, Rails 4.2 - Koji build target
by Vít Ondruch 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

Hi all, In preparation for Ruby 2.2 [1] and rebuild of packages with binary extensions, I asked for Koji build target in advance [2] and it is already prepared. So given that FESCo approve the Ruby 2.2 change, I'll start with packages rebuild tomorrow. As soon as Ruby 2.2 is there, I'll appreciate if you can rebuild your packages with binary extensions against it. Also, Josef proposed Ruby on Rails 4.2 change for F22 [3]. Unfortunately, with current schedule, I am afraid we cannot make it on time. Is there any volunteer, who could help us with this task? Thanks. Vít [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.2 [2] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6083 [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_on_Rails_4.2

2 8

Provides in packages?
by Darryl L. Pierce 13 Jan '15

13 Jan '15

Have we decided to eliminate: Provides: rubygem(%{name}) = %{version} from the specfiles? I have an update for a gem I maintain and rpmlint is complaining that the line is redundant. Maybe I missed where we announced that such things are no longer needed in Ruby gem packages? -- Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce(a)gmail.com> http://mcpierce.blogspot.com/ Famous last words: "I wonder what happens if we do it this way?"

6 13

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig January 2015