although the first will likely need to be fixed also on our side by `BR:
rubygem(base64)`
No, that should not be necessary. Asciidoctor no longer uses base64. The package must be using an out of date version of Asciidoctor. See https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/blob/main/CHANGELOG.adoc#2022-202...
The first issue seems to be related to a change in behavior in the inspect method. I'm willing to normalize the comparison strings in this case since this isn't really what the test is testing for.
Best Regards,
-Dan
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 4:08 AM Vít Ondruch via ruby-sig < ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Dne 31. 10. 24 v 10:56 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
As its turn out, the Psych prerelease caused issues with installation. I did some changes in the spec file, extracting `%gem_versions` and `%gem_prerelease` macros. Now the installation works and the mass rebuild runs here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vondruch/mpb/
One thing I have noticed so far is the extraction of gems from standard library, e.g. rubygem-asciidoctor [1] errors like:
3) Error:
Minitest::Test::TestBlocks::TestImages#test_embeds_base64_encoded_data_uri_for_remote_image_when_imagesdir_is_a_URI_and_data_uri_attribute_is_set:
LoadError: cannot load such file -- base64
And speaking of rubygem-asciidoctor, this also looks suspicious:
- Failure:
Minitest::Test::TestExtensions::TestIntegration#test_should_assign_captures_correctly_for_inline_macros
[test/extensions_test.rb:1382]: --- expected +++ actual @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ "target="", attributes={} -target="value,key=val", attributes={1=>"value", "key"=>"val", "name"=>"value"} -target="", attributes={"text"=>""} -target="[text]", attributes={"text"=>"[text]"} +target="value,key=val", attributes={1 => "value", "key" => "val", "name" => "value"} +target="", attributes={"text" => ""} +target="[text]", attributes={"text" => "[text]"} target="target", attributes={} -target="target", attributes={1=>"value", "key"=>"val", "name"=>"value"} -target="target", attributes={"text"=>""} -target="target", attributes={"text"=>"[text]"} +target="target", attributes={1 => "value", "key" => "val", "name" => "value"} +target="target", attributes={"text" => ""} +target="target", attributes={"text" => "[text]"} target="target", attributes={}"
That suggest there were added spaces around hash rocket in `#inspect` output. That might be annoying.
Both reported here:
https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/issues/4634
although the first will likely need to be fixed also on our side by `BR: rubygem(base64)`
Vít
Vít
[1]:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vondruch/mpb/fedora-rawhi...
Dne 25. 10. 24 v 14:57 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 25. 10. 24 v 14:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hi everybody,
It is the time of the year to look at upcoming version of Ruby. Therefore I have opened PR with the changes:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/196
and here is the (running) scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125191137
There was failure on aarch64 due to hardening test. New build is running here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125192840
Vít
As already done previously, the PR is opened from my fork, so I'll be able to rebase it and pick some interesting bits into stable branches. I'll also push this branch into the official repo right before merge back into Rawhide to preserve the history.
And here are some interesting bits I have noticed:
- By far the biggest change are the unbundled default gems. While
they are mostly kept in the `bundled-gems` subpackage, it grown significantly. I try to keep the file lists very similar to what would be the gem2rpm output.
- The other thing is that Ruby upstream for some unknown reason
decide to put ruby executable into `libexec` directory, but not only that. There is also `bin` directory nested under. That is quite non-standard place IMHO, therefore I have reverted the change back to the previous location and I hope that upstream will change their mind (or at least provide some reasoning).
- From other changes, please note that the Prism parser is now used
by default. I hope it won't have any compatibility impact, but who knows.
I am not aware of anything else.
As always, please give the Ruby 3.4 some testing and looking forward to your feedback.
Cheers,
Vít
-- _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.o... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue