ruby-sig August 2022

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
6 discussions

Ruby 2.2
by Vít Ondruch 22 Sep '23

22 Sep '23

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

4 19

Packaging Ruby gem documentation
by Benson Muite 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Hi, Rdoc generated HTML often includes embedded fonts and javascript which may be problematic to package. Might it be worth suggesting in the packaging documentation[0] to only create Ri files which are accessible on the command line? A related ticket that prompted this is [1]. Regards, Benson 0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/ 1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097267

5 34

Latest RSpec issues?
by Vít Ondruch 18 Jan '23

18 Jan '23

Dear Mamoru, Could you please check the following two packages which recently started to fail? https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f36 https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-websocket-extensions?coll… I suspect that this is related to the RSpec update, but the errors are quite strange on the first look: ~~~ 1) WebMock::RequestSignature initialization assigns normalized headers Failure/Error: @headers = WebMock::Util::Headers.normalize_headers(headers) #<WebMock::Util::Headers (class)> received :normalize_headers with unexpected arguments expected: ({"A"=>"a"}) got: ({"A"=>"a"}) # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:25:in `headers=' # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:49:in `assign_options' # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:11:in `initialize' # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `new' # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>' # ./lib/webmock/rspec.rb:37:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>' ~~~ Thx a lot Vít P.S. Sorry for not being more helpful, I have to spent some time with CentOS Stream 9 to get Ruby into shape there, especially the problematic SystemTap support [1]. [1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18257

2 23

rpms/ruby module stream branches build failures
by Jun Aruga 16 Aug '22

16 Aug '22

Hi, I tried to build rpms/ruby branches below on the mock build rawhide. Then I got the build errors below. It's great if someone will take a look at it or give me advice. I wanted to rebase Ruby 2.5 from 2.5.8 to 2.5.9 if possible on the ruby-2.5 branch. https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2021/04/05/ruby-2-5-9-released/ * stream-ruby-2.7 * stream-ruby-2.6 * ruby-2.5 ## stream-ruby-2.7 gcc -shared -o ../../.ext/x86_64-linux/ripper.so ripper.o -L. -L../.. -L. -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -Wl,--build-id=sha1 -Wl,-dT,/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-2.7.4/.package_note-ruby-0.3.0-139.fc37.x86_64.ld -fstack-protector-strong -rdynamic -Wl,-export-dynamic -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -Wl,--build-id=sha1 -Wl,-dT,/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-2.7.4/.package_note-ruby-0.3.0-139.fc37.x86_64.ld -m64 -lruby -lm -lc make[2]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-2.7.4/ext/ripper' make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-2.7.4' make: *** [uncommon.mk:296: build-ext] Error 2 ## stream-ruby-2.6 ./configure: line 4122: syntax error near unexpected token `fi' ./configure: line 4122: `fi' ## ruby-2.5 ./configure: line 4101: syntax error near unexpected token `fi' ./configure: line 4101: `fi' -- Jun | He - Him | Timezone: UTC+1 or 2, Czech Republic See <https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/czech-republic-prague-to-utc> for the timezone.

3 6

Minitest 5.16 broke Rails due to kwargs
by Vít Ondruch 02 Aug '22

02 Aug '22

Hi, Just heads up that I have noticed that RoR (and probably more) are broken after Minitest 5.16 landed in Rawhide. This is the RoR commit fixing the issues: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/9766eb4a833c26c64012230b96dd1157ebb8e… However, for us it means the fix is spread across multiple components and it might need more then this patch. @Mamoru please don't push the Minitest 5.16 into stable releases. Vít

2 3

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in August
by Mamoru TASAKA 01 Aug '22

01 Aug '22

Miro Hrončok wrote on 2022/07/26 21:28: > Dear maintainers. > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages > will be retired from Fedora 37 approximately one week before branching (August 2022). > > Policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails… > > The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 35. > > This report is based on dist tags. > > Packages collected via: > https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbf… > > If you see a package that was built, please let me know. > If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that. > > If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so. > > Package (co)maintainers > ========================================================================= > rubygem-coffee-rails jaruga, ruby-packagers-sig, vondruch > rubygem-minitest-reporters pvalena > rubygem-sprockets-rails jaruga, pvalena, ruby-packagers-sig > So the above says "retirement will happen about one week before mass branch (2022-08-09)", that is 2022-08-02 or so, so this will happen very soon! rubygem-sprockets-rails is already fixed (as I posted about 1 weeks ago). I can fix rubygem-minitest-reporters (scratch build successful), should I push the fix? I have not checked rubygem-coffee-rails, sorry. Regards, Mamoru

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig August 2022