Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for F15

[Mo Morsi]

  The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go. Please 
look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:

Rails:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec

Activesupport:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activesupport-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activesupport.spec

Activerecord:
  http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activerecord-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activerecord.spec

Actionpack:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activerecord.spec
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-actionpack.spec

Activeresource:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activeresource-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activeresource.spec

Actionmailer:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-actionmailer-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-actionmailer.spec


To get these working, I had to create and submit the following new gems 
to Fedora

rdoc  -  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668820
isolate - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668821
memcache-client - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668822
text-format - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668823
text-hyphen - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668824


Also rubygem-minitext, owned by mkent needs to be updated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668822


I created a public google docs spreadsheet to better visualize and track 
these changes, as well as any more to update the various gem rpms in 
Fedora to be compatible w/ the the Rails 3 ones.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AobFGzrrFYAQdE4yaHNuY21ZVko4RHBT...

Please take a look at these rpms if you can, the more eyes we get on 
them the better. Unless I receive any negative feedback or if I don't 
get any at all, I'll update these rpms in rawhide by the end of the week 
(the latest I want to get this all done is by the Fedora 15 Feature 
Deadline, two weeks from today). Thanks alot.

   -Mo

[Mo Morsi]

  On 01/11/2011 01:11 PM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>  <snip>
>
>  Actionpack:
>  http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activerecord.spec 
Sorry this link should be
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-actionpack-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm


>  <snip>
>
>
>  Also rubygem-minitext, owned by mkent needs to be updated
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668822
>  
And this link should be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668827


   -Mo

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Hello, Mommamed and all:

>  Please take a look at these rpms if you can, the more eyes we get on
>  them the better. Unless I receive any negative feedback or if I don't
>  get any at all, I'll update these rpms in rawhide by the end of the week
>  (the latest I want to get this all done is by the Fedora 15 Feature
>  Deadline, two weeks from today). Thanks alot.
>
>      -Mo 
Thank you for your much contribution to rails 3.0.x. I want to take a look
at review requests / RFEs needed for rails 3.0.x, however I may be busy
for 3 months or so and I may be not so responsive during the time.

Regards,
Mamoru

[Vít Ondruch]

Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they 
live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the 
later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this 
step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails 
development that long :/

Dne 11.1.2011 19:11, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>     The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go.
> Please
>  look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
>
>  Rails:
>  http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
>  http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
>  
There are missing dependency on railties and bundler, where there is 
enforced reference to rake which should not be necessary according to 
rails gemspec: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec


https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec


Vit

[Minnikhanov]

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 13:11 -0500, Mohammed Morsi wrote:

>  I created a public google docs spreadsheet to better visualize and
> track 
>  these changes, as well as any more to update the various gem rpms in 
>  Fedora to be compatible w/ the the Rails 3 ones.
>  
>
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AobFGzrrFYAQdE4yaHNuY21ZVko4RHBT...
>  
>  Please take a look at these rpms if you can, the more eyes we get on 
>  them the better. Unless I receive any negative feedback or if I don't 
>  get any at all, I'll update these rpms in rawhide by the end of the week 
>  (the latest I want to get this all done is by the Fedora 15 Feature 
>  Deadline, two weeks from today). Thanks alot.
>  
>     -Mo
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 
Append my spreadsheet:
Fedora _ Rails 3 Planning-minn -
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ak4Auu_ZMVOrdE1IeGczY09FWVNrWmJt...

Can't append to your spread ;) Why? Don't know.

[Mo Morsi]

  On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should
> they
>  live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
>  later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
>  step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails
>  development that long :/ 
Yea, we went back and forth on this a few times and I believe the 
general consensus was to do the update.

>  Dne 11.1.2011 19:11, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >     The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go. Please
> > look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
> >
> > Rails:
> > http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
> > http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
> >
>  There are missing dependency on railties and bundler, where there is
>  enforced reference to rake which should not be necessary according to
>  rails gemspec: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
>
>
>  https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
>
>  
Good catch on these, I probably already had them installed when I was 
building these rpms. I'll add them to a revised set of rpms which I'll 
send out soon. I also noticed a missing activemodel dependency for 
activeresource (which isn't a big deal since activemodel 3.0.3 has been 
submitted to Fedora) as well as a rack ~> 1.2.1 dependency for 
actionpack. The latter is a little more concerning as the current Rack 
version in Fedora is 1.1.0 and if Rails 3 doesn't play well with this 
(we can try patching rails itself) we may have to update that as well.

   -Mo

[Mo Morsi]

  On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>     On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
> > live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
> > later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
> > step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails
> > development that long :/
>  Yea, we went back and forth on this a few times and I believe the
>  general consensus was to do the update.
>
> > Dne 11.1.2011 19:11, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >>      The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go. Please
> >> look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
> >>
> >> Rails:
> >> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
> >> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
> >>
> > There are missing dependency on railties and bundler, where there is
> > enforced reference to rake which should not be necessary according to
> > rails gemspec: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >
> >
>  Good catch on these, I probably already had them installed when I was
>  building these rpms. I'll add them to a revised set of rpms which I'll
>  send out soon. I also noticed a missing activemodel dependency for
>  activeresource (which isn't a big deal since activemodel 3.0.3 has been
>  submitted to Fedora) as well as a rack ~>  1.2.1 dependency for
>  actionpack. The latter is a little more concerning as the current Rack
>  version in Fedora is 1.1.0 and if Rails 3 doesn't play well with this
>  (we can try patching rails itself) we may have to update that as well.
>
>      -Mo
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 
I just ran the actionpack 3.0.3 test suite against Rack 1.1.0 and 
everything passed. Also the Rails 3 commit updating the dependency to 
Rack 1.2.1 seems pretty trivial, the only actual code change is to a test.

https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/f3bb185b03e746b52a4035a6df002597d85...

Of course ideally we'd just update Rack to the latest upstream release 
(1.2.1) in F15. Filed a request w/ the maintainer (jeroen) to do so.

   -Mo

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>     On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
> >     On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
> >> live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
> >> later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
> >> step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails
> >> development that long :/
> > Yea, we went back and forth on this a few times and I believe the
> > general consensus was to do the update.
> >
> >> Dne 11.1.2011 19:11, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >>>       The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go. Please
> >>> look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
> >>>
> >>> Rails:
> >>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
> >>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
> >>>
> >> There are missing dependency on railties and bundler, where there is
> >> enforced reference to rake which should not be necessary according to
> >> rails gemspec: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >>
> >>
> >> https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >>
> >>
> > Good catch on these, I probably already had them installed when I was
> > building these rpms. I'll add them to a revised set of rpms which I'll
> > send out soon. I also noticed a missing activemodel dependency for
> > activeresource (which isn't a big deal since activemodel 3.0.3 has been
> > submitted to Fedora) as well as a rack ~>   1.2.1 dependency for
> > actionpack. The latter is a little more concerning as the current Rack
> > version in Fedora is 1.1.0 and if Rails 3 doesn't play well with this
> > (we can try patching rails itself) we may have to update that as well.
> >
> >      -Mo 
Well I did not have chance to go through all the specs, so it was the 
first thing I spotted ;)

> > _______________________________________________
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>  I just ran the actionpack 3.0.3 test suite against Rack 1.1.0 and
>  everything passed. Also the Rails 3 commit updating the dependency to
>  Rack 1.2.1 seems pretty trivial, the only actual code change is to a test.
>
>  https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/f3bb185b03e746b52a4035a6df002597d85...
>
>  Of course ideally we'd just update Rack to the latest upstream release
>  (1.2.1) in F15. Filed a request w/ the maintainer (jeroen) to do so.
>
>      -Mo
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 
I have good experience with Rack backward compatibility. Actually the 
Rack API is so simple that it would be surprising if it didn't work :) 
But what prevents us from updating Rack?

And regarding the required versions, I am sure that Rails are pushing as 
new gems as they can, which is not always what we need for Fedora. It 
seems to me that the same case is with Arel. Rails are requesting Arel 
2, but the Arel 1 should be compatible IMO (I did not tested it though).


Vit

[Mo Morsi]

  On 01/14/2011 04:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >     On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
> >>      On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>> Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
> >>> live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
> >>> later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
> >>> step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails
> >>> development that long :/
> >> Yea, we went back and forth on this a few times and I believe the
> >> general consensus was to do the update.
> >>
> >>> Dne 11.1.2011 19:11, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >>>>        The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go.
> Please
> >>>> look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
> >>>>
> >>>> Rails:
> >>>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
> >>>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
> >>>>
> >>> There are missing dependency on railties and bundler, where there is
> >>> enforced reference to rake which should not be necessary according to
> >>> rails gemspec: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Good catch on these, I probably already had them installed when I was
> >> building these rpms. I'll add them to a revised set of rpms which I'll
> >> send out soon. I also noticed a missing activemodel dependency for
> >> activeresource (which isn't a big deal since activemodel 3.0.3 has been
> >> submitted to Fedora) as well as a rack ~>    1.2.1 dependency for
> >> actionpack. The latter is a little more concerning as the current Rack
> >> version in Fedora is 1.1.0 and if Rails 3 doesn't play well with this
> >> (we can try patching rails itself) we may have to update that as well.
> >>
> >>       -Mo
>  Well I did not have chance to go through all the specs, so it was the
>  first thing I spotted ;)
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ruby-sig mailing list
> >> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> > I just ran the actionpack 3.0.3 test suite against Rack 1.1.0 and
> > everything passed. Also the Rails 3 commit updating the dependency to
> > Rack 1.2.1 seems pretty trivial, the only actual code change is to a test.
> >
> > https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/f3bb185b03e746b52a4035a6df002597d85...
> >
> > Of course ideally we'd just update Rack to the latest upstream release
> > (1.2.1) in F15. Filed a request w/ the maintainer (jeroen) to do so.
> >
> >      -Mo
> > _______________________________________________
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>  I have good experience with Rack backward compatibility. Actually the
>  Rack API is so simple that it would be surprising if it didn't work :)
>  But what prevents us from updating Rack? 
We don't own Rack :-)  Nor are either of us co-maintainers. Its really 
up to the owner to push updates to the package. Now that being said, 
there are steps which can be taken if a package goes stale for too long 
after an update request.

>  And regarding the required versions, I am sure that Rails are pushing
> as
>  new gems as they can, which is not always what we need for Fedora. It
>  seems to me that the same case is with Arel. Rails are requesting Arel
>  2, but the Arel 1 should be compatible IMO (I did not tested it though).
>
>
>  Vit
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 
Good to know. I had the feeling that this was the case when I sent out 
my original list of rubygem packages that would need to be updated to 
work with Rails 3. Do you know of any way to test this short of running 
each package's test suite against the older versions of the deps? 
Perhaps we can develop some more cross-gem compatibility test cases at 
some point. This all will get trickier as more projects use bundler as 
we'll have to patch them to remove the specific versioned dependencies.

   -Mo

[Michael Stahnke]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mohammed Morsi <mmorsi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>   On 01/14/2011 04:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >>     On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
> >>>      On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>>> Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
> >>>> live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
> >>>> later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
> >>>> step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails
> >>>> development that long :/
> >>> Yea, we went back and forth on this a few times and I believe the
> >>> general consensus was to do the update.
> >>>
> >>>> Dne 11.1.2011 19:11, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >>>>>        The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go.
> Please
> >>>>> look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rails:
> >>>>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
> >>>>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
> >>>>>
> >>>> There are missing dependency on railties and bundler, where there is
> >>>> enforced reference to rake which should not be necessary according to
> >>>> rails gemspec: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Good catch on these, I probably already had them installed when I was
> >>> building these rpms. I'll add them to a revised set of rpms which
> I'll
> >>> send out soon. I also noticed a missing activemodel dependency for
> >>> activeresource (which isn't a big deal since activemodel 3.0.3 has been
> >>> submitted to Fedora) as well as a rack ~>    1.2.1 dependency for
> >>> actionpack. The latter is a little more concerning as the current Rack
> >>> version in Fedora is 1.1.0 and if Rails 3 doesn't play well with this
> >>> (we can try patching rails itself) we may have to update that as well.
> >>>
> >>>       -Mo
> > Well I did not have chance to go through all the specs, so it was the
> > first thing I spotted ;)
> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ruby-sig mailing list
> >>> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> >> I just ran the actionpack 3.0.3 test suite against Rack 1.1.0 and
> >> everything passed. Also the Rails 3 commit updating the dependency to
> >> Rack 1.2.1 seems pretty trivial, the only actual code change is to a test.
> >>
> >> https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/f3bb185b03e746b52a4035a6df002597d85...
> >>
> >> Of course ideally we'd just update Rack to the latest upstream release
> >> (1.2.1) in F15. Filed a request w/ the maintainer (jeroen) to do so.
> >>
> >>      -Mo
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ruby-sig mailing list
> >> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> > I have good experience with Rack backward compatibility. Actually the
> > Rack API is so simple that it would be surprising if it didn't work :)
> > But what prevents us from updating Rack?
>
>  We don't own Rack :-)  Nor are either of us co-maintainers. Its really
>  up to the owner to push updates to the package. Now that being said,
>  there are steps which can be taken if a package goes stale for too long
>  after an update request.
>
> > And regarding the required versions, I am sure that Rails are pushing as
> > new gems as they can, which is not always what we need for Fedora. It
> > seems to me that the same case is with Arel. Rails are requesting Arel
> > 2, but the Arel 1 should be compatible IMO (I did not tested it though).
> >
> >
> > Vit
> > _______________________________________________
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>
>  Good to know. I had the feeling that this was the case when I sent out
>  my original list of rubygem packages that would need to be updated to
>  work with Rails 3. Do you know of any way to test this short of running
>  each package's test suite against the older versions of the deps?
>  Perhaps we can develop some more cross-gem compatibility test cases at
>  some point. This all will get trickier as more projects use bundler as
>  we'll have to patch them to remove the specific versioned dependencies.
>
>    -Mo
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>  
I think I am an owner of Rack.  If you ask for co-maintainer status,
I'd be happy to grant.

stahnma

[Mo Morsi]

  On 01/14/2011 11:38 AM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>  On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mohammed
> Morsi<mmorsi(a)redhat.com>  wrote:
> >   On 01/14/2011 04:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >>>      On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
> >>>>       On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>>>> Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should
> they
> >>>>> live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of
> the
> >>>>> later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
> >>>>> step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora
> Rails
> >>>>> development that long :/
> >>>> Yea, we went back and forth on this a few times and I believe the
> >>>> general consensus was to do the update.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dne 11.1.2011 19:11, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
> >>>>>>         The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to
> go. Please
> >>>>>> look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rails:
> >>>>>>
> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
> >>>>>> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> There are missing dependency on railties and bundler, where there is
> >>>>> enforced reference to rake which should not be necessary according
> to
> >>>>> rails gemspec:
> https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v3.0.3/rails.gemspec
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Good catch on these, I probably already had them installed when I was
> >>>> building these rpms. I'll add them to a revised set of rpms which
> I'll
> >>>> send out soon. I also noticed a missing activemodel dependency for
> >>>> activeresource (which isn't a big deal since activemodel 3.0.3 has
> been
> >>>> submitted to Fedora) as well as a rack ~>      1.2.1 dependency for
> >>>> actionpack. The latter is a little more concerning as the current Rack
> >>>> version in Fedora is 1.1.0 and if Rails 3 doesn't play well with
> this
> >>>> (we can try patching rails itself) we may have to update that as well.
> >>>>
> >>>>        -Mo
> >> Well I did not have chance to go through all the specs, so it was the
> >> first thing I spotted ;)
> >>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> ruby-sig mailing list
> >>>> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> >>> I just ran the actionpack 3.0.3 test suite against Rack 1.1.0 and
> >>> everything passed. Also the Rails 3 commit updating the dependency to
> >>> Rack 1.2.1 seems pretty trivial, the only actual code change is to a test.
> >>>
> >>>
> https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/f3bb185b03e746b52a4035a6df002597d85...
> >>>
> >>> Of course ideally we'd just update Rack to the latest upstream release
> >>> (1.2.1) in F15. Filed a request w/ the maintainer (jeroen) to do so.
> >>>
> >>>       -Mo
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ruby-sig mailing list
> >>> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> >> I have good experience with Rack backward compatibility. Actually the
> >> Rack API is so simple that it would be surprising if it didn't work :)
> >> But what prevents us from updating Rack?
> > We don't own Rack :-)  Nor are either of us co-maintainers. Its really
> > up to the owner to push updates to the package. Now that being said,
> > there are steps which can be taken if a package goes stale for too long
> > after an update request.
> >
> >> And regarding the required versions, I am sure that Rails are pushing as
> >> new gems as they can, which is not always what we need for Fedora. It
> >> seems to me that the same case is with Arel. Rails are requesting Arel
> >> 2, but the Arel 1 should be compatible IMO (I did not tested it though).
> >>
> >>
> >> Vit
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ruby-sig mailing list
> >> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> > Good to know. I had the feeling that this was the case when I sent out
> > my original list of rubygem packages that would need to be updated to
> > work with Rails 3. Do you know of any way to test this short of running
> > each package's test suite against the older versions of the deps?
> > Perhaps we can develop some more cross-gem compatibility test cases at
> > some point. This all will get trickier as more projects use bundler as
> > we'll have to patch them to remove the specific versioned dependencies.
> >
> >    -Mo
> > _______________________________________________
> > ruby-sig mailing list
> > ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
> >
>  I think I am an owner of Rack.  If you ask for co-maintainer status,
>  I'd be happy to grant.
>
>  stahnma
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 

Hrm, according to the pkg db, kanarip is the owner, and you have 
watchbugzilla / watchcommits rights but 'commit' is still awaiting 
review and you haven't applied for 'approveacls'. Is this information 
correct?

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/rubygem-rack

I applied for all the rights myself and have sent and update request to 
Jeroen. We can take it from there.

   -Mo