FUDCon:Milan 2011 - Ruby SIG meeting

Tyler Smart tsmart at redhat.com
Wed Sep 21 17:51:25 UTC 2011

Yes I have started a project to alleviate the pain mentioned below, and will be continuing it in my lunchtime to get a working demo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl L. Pierce" <dpierce at redhat.com>
To: "Ruby SIG mailing list" <ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:28:35 PM
Subject: Re: FUDCon:Milan 2011 - Ruby SIG meeting

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:45:45AM -0400, Mo Morsi wrote:
> >> * gem2rpm future and possible extensions
> Yes, yes, and more yes! :-)
> We need to automate the gem -> rpm process, I am 100% confident that we 
> can develop tooling to do so. Will alleviate alot of the hasstle w/ Ruby 
> / Fedora integration going forward.

The IT.rb group here in Raleigh had a design session around this very
piece, but AFAIK has moved beyond the discussion phase.
> > I have to add few more points immediately:
> >
> > * Rails 3.1 for F17
> I still would like to hold off on this, we just updated to Rails 3 and I 
> haven't seen much 3.1 adoption upstream yet. Maybe we can relook at this 
> for F18 or F19.

This is a small part of what I mention above. One of the things we
discussed was a complete separation of things like specific versions of
Rails (and other gems) from version of Fedora. IOW, why should F14 be
Rails 3.1? Why not let us run Fedora 17 with whatever version of Rails
we choose?

Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.

ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org

More information about the ruby-sig mailing list