ruby-sig April 2017

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
6 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

Ruby 2.5
by Vít Ondruch 07 May '18

07 May '18

Hi all, Ruby 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5 development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18952639 One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is one big TODO in the .spec file [1]. The question if each of the gems should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully. Vít [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/ruby.spec?h=private-r…

3 27

[ANN] ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig groups
by Vít Ondruch 13 Jul '17

13 Jul '17

Hi everybody, As I promised earlier [1], the ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig were established, together with ruby-packagers-sig mailing list [2]. Not sure precisely how this is going to pan out, but lets try this: 1) I would appreciate if we can transform the list of SIG members [3] into the ruby-sig FAS group. Therefore, can I ask interested parties to apply for this group in FAS? As soon as you apply, I will sponsor you and I'll select a few of you as additional sponsors. Not sure what should be the mininal level to sponsor members, but the bar shouldn't be high. May be introduction on ruby-sig ML together with ruby package review could suffice ... 2) Any of you who is maintaining some interesting package should think about (a) adding ruby-packagers-sig group as a administrator of the package (b) consider moving the ownership of the package to ruby-packages-sig (but please I hope it won't end up just as a junkyard of packages you don't have time to maintain anymore ;) ). As of membership in ruby-packagers-sig, I propose that the minimal level for sponsoring into this group should be maintenance of 5 ruby related package and be packager at least 1 year (possibly with some exception, especially for full time maintainers). Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? BTW, anybody willing to request badges for being member of Ruby-SIG? ;) Vít [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.… [2] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5478 [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Ruby#Members

3 14

ruby-sig FAS group and rubygems build in Copr
by Vít Ondruch 20 Apr '17

20 Apr '17

Hi everybody, You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these questions: 1) Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs. 2) For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is mandated by the infrastructure ticket template). So what are your thoughts? Vít [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org… [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311

5 11

Fwd: Orphaning several rubygem-* packages
by Vít Ondruch 12 Apr '17

12 Apr '17

In case somebody is interested and does not follow fedora-devel. There are some PDF/Prawn related packages ... Vít -------- Přeposlaná zpráva -------- Předmět: Orphaning several rubygem-* packages Datum: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:19:22 +0200 Od: Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> Přeposláno - Komu: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> Společnost: Red Hat Czech s.r.o. Komu: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Hi, I just orphaned several packages: rubygem-ttfunk rubygem-xmlhash rubygem-wirb rubygem-unicode-display_width rubygem-single_test rubygem-ruby-rc4 rubygem-robotex rubygem-rkerberos rubygem-paint rubygem-mobileesp_converted rubygem-hoptoad_notifier rubygem-foreman_api rubygem-fast_xs rubygem-Ascii85 I do not use them and I want to focus more on my other packages. Feel free to grab them. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org

1 0

Rails 5.1.rc1 dependencies
by Vít Ondruch 07 Apr '17

07 Apr '17

Hi all, I just briefly tried Rails 5.1.rc1 and it seems there will be necessary three new dependencies, so I prepared them for reviews in advance: * rubygem-erubi - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439760 * rubygem-bindex - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439791 * rubygem-public_suffix - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439808 Your help is appreciated. Vít

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig April 2017