Dne 01. 11. 22 v 14:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 14. 10. 22 v 19:56 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>
> Dne 13. 10. 22 v 13:49 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
>> Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/10/13 0:26:
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> I have prepared update again. You can see the changes in the PR [1]
>>> I have opened (not intended to be merged, just to show the diff)
>>> and the scratch build is here:
>>>
>>>
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92950720
>>>
>>> I have not spot anything which would caught my attention. Please
>>> give it a try and let me know in case of issues.
>>>
>>> Thx
>>>
>>> Vít
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/134
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for your work.
>>
>> While Pavel is trying rebuilding rubygem- packages continuously, now
>> I tried
>> myself rebuilding.
>>
>>
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mtasaka/rubygem-newruby-test/
>>
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mtasaka/heavypkg-newruby-test/
>>
>> So far
>> * Out of 495 rubygem- packages:
>> - ~447 packages built successfully
>> - ~48 failed to build
>>
>> * And out of other 58 packages which has "BR: ruby-devel" or "BR:
>> pkgconfig(ruby)"
>> - ~53 packages built successfully
>> - ~5 failed to build
>>
>> Just a quick glance at these (I have not checked all of these, just
>> selected
>> some of them)
>>
>> * Removal of File.exists? / Object#=~ / "tainted"ness affects
>> several pacakges
>> * rubygem-jekyll seems to be affected by keywords / positional
>> argument treatment
>> change??
>>
>> By the way, is it better to create "central" bugzilla ticket to keep
>> track of ruby32
>> related issues for each package?
>
>
> There should be created the tracker as part of Ruby 3.2 change
> proposal process. So maybe I should prepare the change proposal early
> and we would get the tracker "for free".
I have put together the change proposal:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_3.2