I am considering a PR by Vít Ondruch for cucumber-messages[1] that would build rubygem-cucumber-messages as a subpackage rather than maintaining it as a separate source package. I am generally inclined to favor the proposal, but it seems to me that it represents an exception to the “MUST” requirement to package RubyGem libraries from the released gem archives. I’ve therefore raised the issue on the Fedora Packaging Committee tracker[3]. The purpose of this email is to raise visibility of that issue among Ruby packagers, and to solicit input from knowledgeable and interested parties.
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cucumber-messages/pull-request/2
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_rubygems
[3] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1512
Hello, ruby-sig folks:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in March
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:42:12 +0100
From: Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
To: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>, devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Dear maintainers.
Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
will be retired frrom rawhide cca on 2026-03-03.
This is the third reminder.
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 41.
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
================================================================================
rubygems @ruby-packagers-sig, mtasaka, vondruch
How will we handle this?
Although fixing rubygems.src FTBFS may not strictly needed (which means rubygems.src is to be
retired on 2026-Mar), I think it is good (or not bad) that keeping rubygems.src alone buildable
so that when desired we can update rubygems.src alone.
For now I've prepared for updating rubygems.src to 4.0.6:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygems/pull-request/5
Mass rebuild for the above rubygems seems in good state:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygems/pull-request/5
Note that 2026-Feb-17 is Fedora 44 beta freeze, and if possible I want to put in
rubygems 4.0.6 into Fedora 44 before the above day.
Regards,
Mamoru