RSpec 3
by Julian C. Dunn
Hi again,
I’ve been packaging more and more stuff that is using RSpec 3 in test suites. We currently have RSpec 2.14.1 even in rawhide. Is anyone working on an upgrade? Or providing RSpec 3 in parallel?
I realize it’s a big undertaking to do this, but it sucks not to be able to run tests in %check because of all the breaking changes.
- Julian
[ Julian C. Dunn <jdunn(a)aquezada.com> * Sorry, I'm ]
[ WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian * only Web 1.0 ]
[ gopher://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/ * compliant! ]
[ PGP: 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9 ]
9 years, 3 months
gem2rpm and upgrades of existing rpms
by Joe Rafaniello
Hi all,
Does anyone use gem2rpm to upgrade an existing rpm to new versions of upstream gems?
I'm contemplating working on a pull request to make gem2rpm aware of an existing .spec file and only update specific sections such as: version, requires, buildrequires, and adding a changelog. As it is now, it overwrites the existing rpm spec, removing any changelog entries, etc.
Is this a good idea? What do others do to regenerate the updated version, requires/buildrequires to avoid human error?
Thanks,
--
Joe Rafaniello
9 years, 5 months
Fitting most of supported Fedora/EPEL versions in a single spec
by Achilleas Pipinellis
For starters, the title says **most of**, because I'm not including
EPEL5 :p
To the point.
Now that we have some common ground between the packaging guidelines,
I'm trying to get together a template for packaging: fc19, fc20, fc21,
el6, el7.
I haven't yet packaged anything for EPEL6, so I searched ruby-sig and
found some answers. So far I have written down the R/BR, so please
correct me I am wrong. Here goes:
```
%if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20} || 0%{?el7}
Requires: ruby(release)
Requires: ruby(rubygems)
%endif
%if 0%{?el6}
Requires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
Requires: ruby(rubygems)
BuildRequires: ruby(abi) >= %{rubyabi}
%else
BuildRequires: ruby(release)
%endif
BuildRequires: rubygems-devel
%if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20} || 0%{?el7} || 0%{?el6}
Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
%endif
```
Next parts are:
1) if gem has native extensions: different %install macro
2) if gem has minitest: build minitest5 for el7 [0]
If I left something out please advise.
Thanks!
[0] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rubygem-minitest/
--
FAS : axilleas
GPG : 0xABF99BE5
Blog: http://axilleas.me
9 years, 5 months
packages failing to build on F21 due to minitest5
by Julian C. Dunn
Hi folks, looks like many of us have failing packages on the f21-build
tag due to the same reason: Minitest 5 is in F21 whereas many upstream
test suites are for Minitest 4.
What's the accepted wisdom to fixing these? Disable tests on f21+?
Convince upstream to upgrade? Both? Other suggestions?
- Julian
--
[ Julian C. Dunn <jdunn(a)aquezada.com> * Sorry, I'm ]
[ WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian * only Web 1.0 ]
[ gopher://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/ * compliant! ]
[ PGP: 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9 ]
9 years, 6 months
Test
by Darryl L. Pierce
Haven't seen any emails in a mighty long time from the list, but the
archive shows activity as recently as 3 days ago...
--
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce(a)gmail.com>
"What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
9 years, 6 months
Packages to review + questions
by František Dvořák
Hello,
could I ask somebody to review these packages?:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079640 rubygem-json_spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076976 rubygem-settingslogic
They are my first ruby packages, so I'm not sure about some
fedora-review complains:
[!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
- false alarm?
[ ]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros:
/usr/share/gems/specifications/settingslogic-2.0.9.gemspec, %
exclude
/usr/share/gems/cache/settingslogic-2.0.9.gem
gems should require rubygems package
Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-settingslogic-doc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
- there is rubygems R-dep only indirectly from the base package, but it
is probably better to have the direct dependency too? (-doc is using
rubygems directories)
Thank you,
František
9 years, 6 months