Ruby 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5
development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got
r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in
dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build:
One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification
of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is
one big TODO in the .spec file . The question if each of the gems
should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully.
As I promised earlier , the ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig were
established, together with ruby-packagers-sig mailing list . Not sure
precisely how this is going to pan out, but lets try this:
1) I would appreciate if we can transform the list of SIG members 
into the ruby-sig FAS group. Therefore, can I ask interested parties to
apply for this group in FAS? As soon as you apply, I will sponsor you
and I'll select a few of you as additional sponsors. Not sure what
should be the mininal level to sponsor members, but the bar shouldn't be
high. May be introduction on ruby-sig ML together with ruby package
review could suffice ...
2) Any of you who is maintaining some interesting package should think
about (a) adding ruby-packagers-sig group as a administrator of the
package (b) consider moving the ownership of the package to
ruby-packages-sig (but please I hope it won't end up just as a junkyard
of packages you don't have time to maintain anymore ;) ). As of
membership in ruby-packagers-sig, I propose that the minimal level for
sponsoring into this group should be maintenance of 5 ruby related
package and be packager at least 1 year (possibly with some exception,
especially for full time maintainers).
Any thoughts, suggestions, comments?
BTW, anybody willing to request badges for being member of Ruby-SIG? ;)
You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages
in Copr  and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd
like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these
1) Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the
group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
2) For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group
again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group , hence
following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group
(note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is
mandated by the infrastructure ticket template).
So what are your thoughts?
In case somebody is interested and does not follow fedora-devel. There
are some PDF/Prawn related packages ...
-------- Přeposlaná zpráva --------
Předmět: Orphaning several rubygem-* packages
Datum: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:19:22 +0200
Od: Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com>
Přeposláno - Komu: Development discussions related to Fedora
Společnost: Red Hat Czech s.r.o.
I just orphaned several packages:
I do not use them and I want to focus more on my other packages.
Feel free to grab them.
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org