Latest RSpec issues?
by Vít Ondruch
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?co...
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
4 months, 3 weeks
Ruby 3.1 - Mass rebuild
by Vít Ondruch
Hi,
It is time of the year when new version of Ruby was released upstream
and we should land it in Fedora. Unfortunately, the change proposal was
approved just last Thursday and on top of that, rebase of libffi broke
Ruby (I am going to disable the failing test cases for the moment and
hope for the best). So this brings us into situation, where won't have
enough time prior Fedora Mass rebuild. I have discussed this a bit with
relengs and one of the options would be to build Ruby early during the
mass rebuild and fix the outfall later. I shared the proposal in the
Fedora Mass rebuild ticket [2]. One downside would be that in case of
problems, we could not trigger our contingency plan, which is "drop our
side tag". But I hope we won't need that.
Any thoughts?
My fist concern is that maybe we should build more then just Ruby.
rubygem-json comes to my mind and possibly rubygem-nokogiri?
Vít
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040380
[2] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10538#comment-775197
1 year, 4 months
Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in March
by Mamoru TASAKA
Miro Hrončok wrote on 2022/02/01 23:08:
> Dear maintainers.
>
> Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
> should be retired from Fedora 36 approximately one week before branching.
>
> However, 5 weekly reminders are required and I forgot to start this sooner,
> hence the retirement will happen in 5 weeks, i.e. March 1st 2022.
> Since this is after the Beta Freeze,
> I will skip retiring components with depending packages.
> Such components will be retired during the next release cycle,
> and are included in this report for completeness.
>
> Policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fai...
>
> The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 33.
>
> This report is based on dist tags.
>
> Packages collected via:
> https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ft...
>
> If you see a package that was built, please let me know.
> If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.
>
> If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.
>
> Package (co)maintainers
> ================================================================================
<snip>
> rubygem-cucumber-rails mmorsi, vondruch
> rubygem-selenium-webdriver mmorsi, ruby-packagers-sig, vondruch
> rubygem-sup dcallagh, jaruga, ruby-packagers-sig, shreyankg
<snip>
>
> Depending on: rubygem-selenium-webdriver (21)
> Too many dependencies for rubygem-selenium-webdriver, not all listed here
Here, it seems rubygem-cucumber-rails rubygem-sup have no impact on other packages.
rubygem-selenium-webdriver has huge impact on other packages:
Although runtime dependency has no impact:
$ dnf repoquery --quiet --repo=koji-36 --qf '%{sourcerpm}' --whatrequires rubygem-selenium-webdriver
rubygem-selenium-webdriver-3.142.7-3.fc33.src.rpm
BuildRequires has huge impact:
$ dnf repoquery --arch=src --quiet --repo=koji-36-source --recursive --whatrequires "rubygem(selenium-webdriver)"
rubygem-actionpack-1:6.1.4.1-2.fc36.src
rubygem-actiontext-0:6.1.4.1-2.fc36.src
rubygem-capybara-0:3.34.0-5.fc36.src
rubygem-cucumber-rails-0:1.8.0-5.fc33.src
rubygem-rspec-rails-0:4.0.2-3.fc36.src
For capybara:
$ dnf repoquery --arch=src --quiet --repo=koji-36-source --recursive --whatrequires "rubygem(capybara)"
rubygem-actionpack-1:6.1.4.1-2.fc36.src
rubygem-actiontext-0:6.1.4.1-2.fc36.src
rubygem-cucumber-rails-0:1.8.0-5.fc33.src
rubygem-railties-0:6.1.4.1-2.fc36.src
rubygem-rspec-rails-0:4.0.2-3.fc36.src
rubygem-simplecov-0:0.13.0-12.fc36.src
Can someone investigate rubygem-selenium-webdriver build failure? Thank you in advance.
BTW, for rubygem-simplecov, I've found that rubygem-capybara (so rubygem-selenium-webdriver) BR
dependency can easily be removed.
Regards,
Mamoru
1 year, 4 months
Question about redmine
by Peter Boy
Hi,
we are using redmine as our project management tool and installation and maintenance is a bit cumbersome. Having a Fedora package would make it a lot easier. Has someone already tried to create a Fedora package of Redmine? Or are there specific issues that make it difficult to create a rpm?
I'm wondering that no rpm distribution includes a Redmine package. There is a third party package, but it is non-functional.
Thanks
Peter
1 year, 4 months
