Re: Ruby 2.5

[Aleksandar Kostadinov]

Do we have a requirements document about ruby packaging? I'm all for 
avoiding upstream incompatibilities which we are currently not doing for 
some reasons. And having an official requirements document will make 
more clear what is a bug and what is a feature.

Jun Aruga wrote on 12/14/17 19:23:
> OK thanks for the info.
>
> Comparing the result of "gem list" command between upstream and our
> Fedora package, I found the difference.
> That can be confusing people.
>
> Some of the gem are not shown in the result such as cmath for Fedora
> package ruby.
>
> When running below command on mock, we can load cmath that is not in
> "gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
> list".
> irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
> => true
>
> Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
> upstream Ruby?
> Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
> We might also have to add additional gems as a recommendations like
> bigdecimal in ruby.spec as the result.
> Recommends: rubygem(bigdecimal) >= %{bigdecimal_version}
>
> No "default: " in the gem list for Fedora package is from past
> version. That's fine for me.
>
> ## Upstream
>
> On current latest trunk.
>
> $ dest/bin/gem list
>
> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
>
> bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
> bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
> cmath (default: 1.0.0)
> csv (default: 1.0.0)
> date (default: 1.0.0)
> dbm (default: 1.0.0)
> digest (default: 0.1.0)
> etc (default: 1.0.0)
> fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
> fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
> gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
> io-console (default: 0.4.6)
> ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
> json (default: 2.1.0)
> openssl (default: 2.1.0)
> psych (default: 3.0.0)
> rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
> scanf (default: 1.0.0)
> sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
> stringio (default: 0.0.1)
> strscan (default: 0.0.1)
> webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
> zlib (default: 1.0.0)
>
> ## Building with your SRPM, and checked on mock environment
>
> After installing all the binary RPMs from your SRPM
>
> <mock-chroot> sh-4.4# gem list
>
> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
>
> bigdecimal (1.3.3)
> did_you_mean (1.1.2)
> io-console (0.4.6)
> json (2.1.0)
> minitest (5.10.3)
> net-telnet (0.1.1)
> openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
> power_assert (1.1.1)
> psych (3.0.0)
> rake (12.3.0)
> rdoc (6.0.0)
> test-unit (3.2.7)
> xmlrpc (0.3.0)
>
> Jun
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> > Well, this is not the way you can get the right archive. You have to use
> > something like:
> > tool/make-snapshot -packages=xz tmp
> >
> > I previously published script which can generate the tarball using mock
> > and update the spec file:
> >
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
> >
> > V.
> >
> > Dne 14.12.2017 v 15:16 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
> > > Thanks for that.
> > >
> > > I want you to add below kind of comment somethere in
> > > "private-ruby-2.5" branch or master ruby.spec file a way to create
> > > Source0 file.
> > >
> > > # git clone https://github.com/ruby/ruby.git && cd ruby
> > > # git archive --prefix=ruby-2.5.0-r61214/ 06d36a1 | xz >
> > > ruby-2.5.0-r61214.tar.xz
> > >
> > > Possible?
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> > > > Hi everybody,
> > > >
> > > > Here is another test build of Ruby 2.5, this time it is r61214.
> > > >
> > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23681673
> > > >
> > > > As always, you can find the .spec file in private-ruby-2.5 branch of
> > > > ruby dist-gits.
> > > >
> > > > Vít
> > > >
> > > > Dne 13.4.2017 v 10:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > > > > 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-ru...
> > > > >
> > > > > ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > >
> > > > ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> >
> > ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]