What you've suggested is definitely a good idea. I do agree it's important
to reflect which *version*, in addtion to the name, link, etc. of a
particular gem that was converted into rpm, as sometimes the latest patches
and bug fixes are not included in the rpm.
On Sunday, April 15, 2012, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) wrote:
On 2012-04-10 12:09, Mo Morsi wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 06:07 PM, Zuhao wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
is an idea proposed in this year's Google Summer of
>> Code. The website will be mainly used for tracking the progress of the
>> conversion of each gem (similar to isitruby19.com
>), promoting the Fedora/Ruby integration, as
>> well as highlighting some success stories. Hopefully, this website
>> will let more people to be aware of the project, and thus more would
>> contribute to make it better.
>> I have drafted a proposal with some preliminary design of the website.
>> I would love to hear any thoughts or suggestions from you. As a
>> developer, what do you want to see on this website so that it can be
>> most helpful to the Fedora/Ruby community?
>> The proposal is at:
>> Any feedback is much appreciated!
> Hey Zuhao, thanks for the submission. the proposal looks very strong,
> and the mockups look great.
> I encourage anyone else who may have any additional ideas as how to
> promote Ruby on Fedora and/or develop additional tooling to streamline
> the Ruby to Fedora process to respond here and/or on the proposal
I've often had questions (after the usual question of what gem version is
in what version of what platform (between Fedora/EPEL/RHEL)) about whether
a specific version of a gem distributed with a given version of the
1) been updated with CVE patches,
2) been patched to negate bugs.
Depending on the feasibility, of course, perhaps there's opportunity to
contain that information in isitfedoraruby.com
Jeroen van Meeuwen
Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG
e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
m: +44 74 2516 3817
pgp: 9342 BF08
ruby-sig mailing list