ruby-sig FAS group and rubygems build in Copr

[Vít Ondruch]

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/[e-mail]/...

[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311

[Ken Dreyer]

This sounds interesting, and I'm curious to see how well all the gems
build compared to the PyPI packages!

- Ken

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> 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:
> 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.
> 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/[e-mail]/...
>
> [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311
>
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 21.5.2016 v 04:20 Ken Dreyer napsal(a):
> This sounds interesting, and I'm curious to see how well all the gems
> build compared to the PyPI packages!

I think that there should not be big issues. If you not running tests,
there shouldn't be to much issues. So far there were just small changes
to gem2rpm such as issues with empty URL.

So Ken (since you are the only person who responded so far), what is
your feeling about the ruby-sig FAS group and group ownership of the
packages?

Vít

[1] https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/issues/71
> Ken
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> > 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:
> > 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.
> > 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/[e-mail]/...
> >
> > [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311
> >
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]
>
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Jun Aruga]

Hi,

I will agree with you. +1.
"1)" looks convenient.

Jun

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vít Ondruch" 
> To: [e-mail]
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:57:37 PM
> Subject: ruby-sig FAS group and rubygems build in Copr
>
> 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:
> 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.
> 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/[e-mail]/...
>
> [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311
>
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Dominic Cleal]

On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks
to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if
the package was owned by the group.

[Vít Ondruch]

Ok, so if I asked for the SIG group, I would need to fill this template:

PkgDB2 allows FAS group to maintain packages in Fedora.
Before applying for a new group, you should ask for a new mailing list
or agree with the different people concerned to use the mailing list you
already have.
Once the mailing list is sorted out, please create a bugzilla account
for this address. The list will be assigned or made cc to the bugs open
against the package the group has ACLs for and will be added to the
<pkg>-owner@fp.o alias.

IOW what ML should be used? Can we re-user ruby-sig ML? Wouldn't it
increase the traffic too much (or may be there would be some traffic
finally? ;)) ?

BTW I went ahead and asked for the group for Copr builds:

https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5329

Let me know if you are interested.

Vít

Dne 26.5.2016 v 09:32 Dominic Cleal napsal(a):
> On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks
> to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if
> the package was owned by the group.

[Vít Ondruch]

I still stumbling across this.

So would anybody mind, if we moved generic ruby packaging discussion to
newly created "ruby" ML and kept this ML for ruby-sig traffic, e.g.
notifications from BZ etc ...

I am not sure if this is possible and who is actually owner of the ML
etc, but let me know your preferences, so I might try to push this forward.

Vít

Dne 30.5.2016 v 15:48 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> Ok, so if I asked for the SIG group, I would need to fill this template:
>
> PkgDB2 allows FAS group to maintain packages in Fedora.
> Before applying for a new group, you should ask for a new mailing list
> or agree with the different people concerned to use the mailing list you
> already have.
> Once the mailing list is sorted out, please create a bugzilla account
> for this address. The list will be assigned or made cc to the bugs open
> against the package the group has ACLs for and will be added to the
> <pkg>-owner@fp.o alias.
>
> IOW what ML should be used? Can we re-user ruby-sig ML? Wouldn't it
> increase the traffic too much (or may be there would be some traffic
> finally? ;)) ?
>
> BTW I went ahead and asked for the group for Copr builds:
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5329
>
> Let me know if you are interested.
>
> Vít
>
> Dne 26.5.2016 v 09:32 Dominic Cleal napsal(a):
> > On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks
> > to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if
> > the package was owned by the group.
>
> ruby-sig mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Vít Ondruch]

I had been right about submitting the ticket, but then I discovered:

https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5478
https://pagure.io/fedora-commops/issue/84

Since it is probably good idea to keep the things consistent, I
requested ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig groups at the end:

https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6001

Please join the discussion in the ticket.

Vít

Dne 7.4.2017 v 15:33 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> I still stumbling across this.
>
> So would anybody mind, if we moved generic ruby packaging discussion to
> newly created "ruby" ML and kept this ML for ruby-sig traffic, e.g.
> notifications from BZ etc ...
>
> I am not sure if this is possible and who is actually owner of the ML
> etc, but let me know your preferences, so I might try to push this forward.
>
> Vít
>
> Dne 30.5.2016 v 15:48 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > Ok, so if I asked for the SIG group, I would need to fill this template:
> >
> > PkgDB2 allows FAS group to maintain packages in Fedora.
> > Before applying for a new group, you should ask for a new mailing list
> > or agree with the different people concerned to use the mailing list you
> > already have.
> > Once the mailing list is sorted out, please create a bugzilla account
> > for this address. The list will be assigned or made cc to the bugs open
> > against the package the group has ACLs for and will be added to the
> > <pkg>-owner@fp.o alias.
> >
> > IOW what ML should be used? Can we re-user ruby-sig ML? Wouldn't it
> > increase the traffic too much (or may be there would be some traffic
> > finally? ;)) ?
> >
> > BTW I went ahead and asked for the group for Copr builds:
> >
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5329
> >
> > Let me know if you are interested.
> >
> > Vít
> >
> > Dne 26.5.2016 v 09:32 Dominic Cleal napsal(a):
> > > On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks
> > > to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if
> > > the package was owned by the group.
> >
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]
>
> ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

[Mo Morsi]

On 05/20/2016 06:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> 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:
> 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.
> 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

The FAS groups seem reasonable. Should reduce packaging overhead if all 
goes as intended.

Is the idea behind the copr repo to eventually remove the build from the 
main distro repositories? Or will they live side by side? (with 
different intents / workflows)

-Mo

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 27.5.2016 v 18:24 Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> On 05/20/2016 06:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > 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:
> > 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.
> > 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
>
> The FAS groups seem reasonable. Should reduce packaging overhead if
> all goes as intended.
>
> Is the idea behind the copr repo to eventually remove the build from
> the main distro repositories? Or will they live side by side? (with
> different intents / workflows)

I don't think this has anything to do with the main repo. They will live
side by side. I'd say that the level of support and assurance will be
always different. E.g. the package in the main repo must undergone
review, they are maintained by their human maintainer, while the
packages in Copr will be converted to rpm by script, there won't be
executed test suite, etc.

V.

[Ken Dreyer]

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> the
> packages in Copr will be converted to rpm by script, there won't be
> executed test suite, etc.

We could make gem2rpm gems run the test suites non-fatally, ie tack
"|| :" on to the end of the rspec or testrb invocations. That would at
least allow us to see the test output, rather than not running it at
all.

- Ken

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 29.5.2016 v 07:18 Ken Dreyer napsal(a):
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> > the
> > packages in Copr will be converted to rpm by script, there won't be
> > executed test suite, etc.
>
> We could make gem2rpm gems run the test suites non-fatally, ie tack
> "|| :" on to the end of the rspec or testrb invocations. That would at
> least allow us to see the test output, rather than not running it at
> all.

I am more worried about the heuristics necessary to properly guess the
testing framework. But this is just the first step. Then you should
guess the BR etc.

But feel free to send some initial PR ;)

V.