----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaroslav Prokop" <jar.prokop(a)volny.cz>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:05:03 PM
Subject: Re: Ruby 3.0
WEBrick is default in some applications, IIRC - e.g Sinatra  or
Jekyll - as it was a server in standard lib that came with Ruby.
I am not sure 100% there, as it could just be rack default to search for
WEBrick, either way, it'll be better to watch out for
I think there's no need for anything else than simple declaration of dependency in
Gemfile / gemspec. Which should be there in first place. Webrick is simply stand-alone gem
Quickly scrolling through the code of Sinatra and Jekyll it seems like
WEBrick is used in tests as well, so it's a question if it will be just
a matter of
adding require (maybe Suggests?) to gemspec or if BuildRequires will
need appending too.
Yes, there'll be more of fixing like that for Ruby, and gems upstreams (f.e. `rexml`
require). If you want to jump in on the train, here're some failed pre-builds:
Please create a PR to both gem upstream and Fedora package if you're able to fix some
To answer your question, adjustments to packages might be needed and
packaging WEBrick might be worth it, but better inspection is needed
from maintainers of packages that package said software.
On 16/12/2020 18:39, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Another snapshot is available in private-ruby-3.0 branch and the build
> is running here:
FYI it's not synced with PR#70.
I'll run COPR build in my COPR as well.
> Most notable change is removal of WEBRick from Ruby. I am not
> completely sure how much disruption this could cause in Fedora. I
> wonder if it is worth of packaging it as a separate package. Thoughts?
> P.S. @jaruga + @pvalena thx for handling the GCC11 issues.
Software Engineer, Red Hat
Brno, Czech Republic