ruby-sig December 2022

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

5 participants
9 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

Packaging Ruby gem documentation
by Benson Muite 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Hi, Rdoc generated HTML often includes embedded fonts and javascript which may be problematic to package. Might it be worth suggesting in the packaging documentation[0] to only create Ri files which are accessible on the command line? A related ticket that prompted this is [1]. Regards, Benson 0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/ 1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097267

5 34

Latest RSpec issues?
by Vít Ondruch 18 Jan '23

18 Jan '23

Dear Mamoru, Could you please check the following two packages which recently started to fail? https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f36 https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-websocket-extensions?coll… I suspect that this is related to the RSpec update, but the errors are quite strange on the first look: ~~~ 1) WebMock::RequestSignature initialization assigns normalized headers Failure/Error: @headers = WebMock::Util::Headers.normalize_headers(headers) #<WebMock::Util::Headers (class)> received :normalize_headers with unexpected arguments expected: ({"A"=>"a"}) got: ({"A"=>"a"}) # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:25:in `headers=' # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:49:in `assign_options' # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:11:in `initialize' # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `new' # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>' # ./lib/webmock/rspec.rb:37:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>' ~~~ Thx a lot Vít P.S. Sorry for not being more helpful, I have to spent some time with CentOS Stream 9 to get Ruby into shape there, especially the problematic SystemTap support [1]. [1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18257

2 23

Ruby 3.2
by Vít Ondruch 02 Jan '23

02 Jan '23

Hi everybody, I think it is the highest time to kick of the Ruby 3.2 thread. So here we go. I have just pushed the first update to private-ruby-3.2 branch [1] and here is the scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92083633 There is nothing what would stand out. Nevertheless, I was testing the `--enable-mkmf-verbose` configure option submitted upstream by @jaruga (thx a bunch) with the ByeBug example just to find out that ByeBug is broken due to some upstream changes [3]. So just early heads up that there will be needed some changes for Ruby 3.2. As always, feedback is appreciate via regular channels. Vít [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/tree/private-ruby-3.2 [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/6a98c151e6205b6d5774d0436f6492d97… [3] https://github.com/pry/pry/pull/2149

5 61

zeitwerk updated to 2.6.6
by Mamoru TASAKA 22 Dec '22

22 Dec '22

Hello, ruby-sig folks: I've updated rubygem-zeitwerk from 2.5.4 to 2.6.6. 2.5.4 FTBFS with ruby3.2: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vondruch/ruby-3.2/package/rubygem-z… This commit is needed to fix this build error: https://github.com/fxn/zeitwerk/commit/d36d646c157a3b1584035e2014b68f90829a… and backporting this commit to 2.5.4 cannot be done cleanly. Also zeitwerk consumers are basically RoR related, and it seems upstream RoR CI already uses zeitwerk 2.6.x, so I judged that backporting the above commit to Fedora zeitwerk is waste of time, and simply updating to the newest is better. Regards, Mamoru

2 1

Latest stable Ruby breaks some packages
by Vít Ondruch 08 Dec '22

08 Dec '22

I have just noticed, that rubygem-actionpack, rubygem-rack, rubygem-racktest are broken with latest Ruby. It seems the issue is on "cgi" gem side. E.g. these are the ActionPack related tickets: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-actionpack?collection=f38 https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/46578 https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/46595 And this is the fix in the cgi gem: https://github.com/ruby/cgi/pull/29 Unfortunately, current recommendation is following what Rails did, i.e. "update the cgi" gem. This is was already fixed also in Ruby, but it does not seems upstream considers this important enough to cut a new release :/ https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6784 I'll apply the patch in Ruby shortly. Sorry for the breakage. Vít

1 2

Ruby documentation licenses
by Benson Muite 06 Dec '22

06 Dec '22

As indicated in https://github.com/ruby/rdoc/issues/924 The Ruby documentation has components covered under OFL-1.1-RFN, CC-BY-2.5, BSD-3-Clause and GPL-2.0 licenses Would these need to be listed in any package containing Rdoc files? If so, a) should listing these be required of new packages? b) might it be possible to create a script that can update these for existing packages? For example during a mass rebuild?

1 0

Rubygem packages SPDX status
by Jarek Prokop 05 Dec '22

05 Dec '22

Hi, I have been working on the validation of Rubygem licenses with the SPDX format. all work done so far lives in my fedorapeople space: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/spdx_rubygems.git/tree/ It is WIP, including the scripts. (I got a bit sidetracked with validating MIT variations.) Note that you have to be in the directory where `rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz` was upacked into. From the total of about 500 rubygems (and with my incomplete script) we have 232 SPDX licenses: ~~~ $ cat current_ok_rb.csv | wc -l 232 ~~~ The real count is probably higher, as some gems are simply MIT or have correct SPDX, however are older so they do not have the license metadata included that I can compare to. See this list for complete info: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/spdx_rubygems.git/tree/rbg… You can see the `current_ok_rb.csv` in the same repository. So far, I have validated mostly MIT (as those are the easiest to get right), I will need to fix the script before my next update to account for other licenses too. If your gem has multiple valid SPDX license identifiers, but are in conjunction using "and" "or" instead of "AND" "OR", the script will be able to catch that and I'll make a PR to the gem with the converted form should that be the case. There are also a few gems excluded from the search as they do not have a gem in Fedora's sources cache. These gems are: rubygem-morph-cli rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-asciidoctor rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc I have not run the script against them, they are explicitly excluded, since so far I am only comparing the RPM Spec against gem2rpm output. == Plan == I plan to do this in 2 main phases: 1) Initial pass This is just a pass through the packages to note all packages that are already SPDX compatible. 2a) Inspecting and fixing This probably will be mostly manual work to identify correct licenses for gems that do not have license in the gemspec metadata. Also convert Callaway convention to the correct SPDX identifier. This cannot be reliably automated for example the BSD license can be converted to 4 different SPDX license identifiers. However, tooling can give an idea of what the licensing probably is. At that point I will be mainly looking on Fedora spec's license, whether it has valid SPDX or not. 2b) Validate MIT licenses MIT license has multiple variants. While it mostly seems that the gem MIT licenses are under what SPDX also considers MIT, I'd like to validate that assumption. == How to help == Make sure your rubygem package has a license in Fedora's specfile that is a valid SPDX license identifier. You can also take a look at the gems where license does not match between gem2rpm and fedora (RubyGems should use SPDX, even though it is older version, that's a good pointer for us) and fix them. On closing note, be wary of licenses like "LGPL-2.1+", it is valid, however deprecated by current SPDX version and the `license-validate` tool won't accept it. See https://spdx.org/licenses/ for complete license list including the list of deprecated identifiers. Thanks, Jarek

1 3

Starting to use Zuul CI for other rubygem-* packages
by Jun Aruga (he / him) 01 Dec '22

01 Dec '22

Hi, I just sent PR[1][2] to start to use Zuul CI for RubyGems, Bundler and rubygem-* packages used in the Ruby module, as I can see it's useful for rpms/ruby. I hope you are happy with it. Perhaps we might be able to add the following packages to Zuul in the future too. * All the rubygem-* packages included in Koschei ruby-rails group. https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/groups/ruby-rails * All the rubygem-* packages @ruby-packagers-sig [1] https://pagure.io/fedora-project-config/pull-request/243 [2] How to add: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zuul-based-ci#Add_the_repository_into_the_Zu… -- Jun | He - Him | Timezone: UTC+1 or 2, Czech Republic See <https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/czech-republic-prague-to-utc> for the timezone.

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig December 2022