Hi everybody,
Since Ruby 2.2 is going to be released during Christmas and -preview1
release is imminent (this Wednesday?), it is probably time to start
looking into its packaging. So here is the updated .spec file [1] and
scratch build [2], which can be finally build on all platforms. Sorry,
no Copr for you, since Ruby's build fails there due to old RHEL kernel :/.
What has changed from packaging point of view? Luckily, not much, but
here are a few bullets which comes to my mind:
* RPM 4.12 introduces new %load function, which is used to load RPM
macros during RPM build. This allowed to drop my custom RPM macro [3].
On the other hand, you'll be able to build the Ruby only on F21+
(luckily, you should be able to build SRPM everywhere).
* The RubyGems filesystem was not explicit enough, so there might be
something accidentally packages. This is now more explicit, so we should
be safer.
* Ruby now ships with MiniTest and Test::Unit. The very good news is
that they are installed so far as a regular gems. This means that you
have to always specify them in your Gemfile, if you are using Bundler,
but this is generally step in good direction. I hope that upstream will
not change their mind :) Due to this change, we have new subpackages
rubygem-test-unit (and rubygem-power_assert, which is now Test::Unit's
dependency). No more %{_bindir}/testrb (but nobody is using it these
days anyway, right? ;)
* Some prevailing test failures were resolved, some others introduced,
but hopefully they'll get resolved prior stable release.
Generally, I'd say that not much has changed since 2.1, which is good news.
Please test the packaging if you can and let me know about any issues
you encountered.
Also, if you have any other suggestions about Ruby packaging in general,
what we could improve etc, this is probably good time to share. It seems
that OpenSUSE guys are improving their packaging, so you might want to
get some inspiration there [4, 5, 6] ;)
Vít
[1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/log/?h=private-ruby-2.2
[2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7578843
[3]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/commit/?h=private-ruby-2.2&id=8…
[4] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:darix:ruby/ruby-common
[5] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:darix:ruby/ruby2.2
[6] https://github.com/openSUSE/gem2rpm/commits/master
Hi guys,
Anybody have any experience with some scripts for bash completion? Have
you tried any? Should we integrate any? Just a quick googling gave me
two results:
https://github.com/mernen/completion-rubyhttps://github.com/pdkl95/rubygems-completion
And there are probably others. I did not tried them yet. Have you? Do
you have other/better tips?
Thank you
Vit
Hi,
I just wanted to apologize for this and similar breakages. They are due
to updated rubygem-gherkin which is not compatible with rubygem-cucumber
yet. I plan to update Cucumber hopefully next week.
Actually, there will be probably some outfall from this, but I decided,
that the update Cucumber is already quite long overdue. Since I am doing
the changes only for F25, I hope there will be enough time to resolve
all possible breakages.
Thank you for your understanding.
Vít
-------- Přeposlaná zpráva --------
Předmět: rubygem-rspec-core's dependencies failed to resolve in f25
Datum: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:48:25 +0000 (UTC)
Od: notifications(a)fedoraproject.org
Komu: vondruch(a)redhat.com
rubygem-rspec-core's dependencies failed to resolve in f25
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/package/rubygem-rspec-core
--
You received this message due to your preference settings at
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications/vondruch.id.fedoraproject.org/…
Hi, I am studying Ruby packaging guidelines. I would need to know some
packages names that have been built following the "Applications" [1]
rules, in order to read their spec file and upstream sources tree.
Thank you for your time
[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Applications
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
If you are using Koschei for continuous rebuilds of your package, you
have probably noticed that today, there were failing plenty of packages.
This is because since Ruby 2.3, ruby package does not Requires most of
it dependencies, but just Recommends them. That should be fine for most
of users, since DNF is installing Recommended packages by default, but
you can avoid them if you want to minimize your application foot print.
Nevertheless, now you have to make sure, that if your package really
requires some of the packages, you have to specify this dependency
explicitly, such as [1] (please note that there used to be patch,
modifying the .gemspec, but that would impact Gemfile.lock files, so I
don't think this would be good approach). It seems that most failures
are caused by activesupport, arel, bundler, multi_xml and crack, which I
am going to fix.
Vít
[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rubygem-activesupport.git/commit/?i…
- -------- Přeposlaná zpráva --------
Předmět: weakdeps and the buildroot
Datum: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:18 -0500
Od: Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us>
Přeposláno - Komu: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Komu: devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi All,
Following the decision of FPC that weak deps must not be installed into the
buildroot[1] koji has been changed to set install_weak_deps to 0. What this
means is that some builds may fail due to missing things. if you encounter
this the correct fix is to add BuildRequires to you package for
everything you
explicitly need to build
Regards
Dennis
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-03-24/fpc.
2016-03-24-16.01.log.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=va8o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----