Hi,
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103
This ^^ is first draft of Ruby which should be compatible with OpenSSL 3.x. So far, I was just successful to build the package including passing the test suite. Nevertheless:
* Some test cases are disabled, because they fail even upstream
* Upstream is not done with the patch set, so there will be eventually changes. But I'd like to fix the FTBFS ASAP.
* The patches needs to be renamed and described and what not.
* There are certainly quite a few deprecation warnings during build, but I'm not going to fix them. Preferring smaller patch set + better backward compatibility over them
* I have not tested anything else, not even if it installs and if e.g. some gem can be installed.
* It would deserve test mass rebuild, or at least mass rebuild of packages which are currently FTBFS, such as Puma and possibly event machine.
There is probably lot more what is wrong with the PR, so please don't merge it yet, but feel free to give it try. I just wanted to share my progress and save the work :)
Vít
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:14 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
Hello, it looks good.
This ^^ is first draft of Ruby which should be compatible with OpenSSL 3.x. So far, I was just successful to build the package including passing the test suite. Nevertheless:
Some test cases are disabled, because they fail even upstream
Upstream is not done with the patch set, so there will be eventually
changes. But I'd like to fix the FTBFS ASAP.
The patches needs to be renamed and described and what not.
There are certainly quite a few deprecation warnings during build, but
I'm not going to fix them. Preferring smaller patch set + better backward compatibility over them
- I have not tested anything else, not even if it installs and if e.g.
some gem can be installed.
It seems to work ok. I've also succeeded creating and running a new Rails app (using Rails from Fedora).
- It would deserve test mass rebuild, or at least mass rebuild of
packages which are currently FTBFS, such as Puma and possibly event machine.
There is probably lot more what is wrong with the PR, so please don't merge it yet, but feel free to give it try. I just wanted to share my progress and save the work :)
To test, I've built it in my testing COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/build/2934888/
I've also run gems rebuilds of dependent packages in an accompanying COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/builds/ (starting with 2934971)
There're multiple buildroots, so to if the build failed, you need to be check for rawhide buildroot specifically(I'll fix this next time). I'll check for any errors with my automation.
Pavel
Vít
Thx for checking. It seems both Eventmachine as well as Puma fails. Neither of the failures looks related to OpenSSL, though.
Puma is broken by RPM. I have pushed the fix:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/c/29a98a559d6f96e47e7aefc3f8...
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 2:46 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:14 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103Hello, it looks good.
This ^^ is first draft of Ruby which should be compatible with OpenSSL 3.x. So far, I was just successful to build the package including passing the test suite. Nevertheless: * Some test cases are disabled, because they fail even upstream * Upstream is not done with the patch set, so there will be eventually changes. But I'd like to fix the FTBFS ASAP. * The patches needs to be renamed and described and what not. * There are certainly quite a few deprecation warnings during build, but I'm not going to fix them. Preferring smaller patch set + better backward compatibility over them * I have not tested anything else, not even if it installs and if e.g. some gem can be installed.It seems to work ok. I've also succeeded creating and running a new Rails app (using Rails from Fedora).
* It would deserve test mass rebuild, or at least mass rebuild of packages which are currently FTBFS, such as Puma and possibly event machine. There is probably lot more what is wrong with the PR, so please don't merge it yet, but feel free to give it try. I just wanted to share my progress and save the work :)To test, I've built it in my testing COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/build/2934888/
I've also run gems rebuilds of dependent packages in an accompanying COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/builds/ (starting with 2934971)
There're multiple buildroots, so to if the build failed, you need to be check for rawhide buildroot specifically(I'll fix this next time). I'll check for any errors with my automation.
Pavel
Vít
ruby-sig mailing list --ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toruby-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 on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
There seems to be one legitimate issue with Puma:
https://github.com/ruby/openssl/pull/399#issuecomment-966103794
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 10:53 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Thx for checking. It seems both Eventmachine as well as Puma fails. Neither of the failures looks related to OpenSSL, though.
Puma is broken by RPM. I have pushed the fix:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/c/29a98a559d6f96e47e7aefc3f8...
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 2:46 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:14 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103Hello, it looks good.
This ^^ is first draft of Ruby which should be compatible with OpenSSL 3.x. So far, I was just successful to build the package including passing the test suite. Nevertheless: * Some test cases are disabled, because they fail even upstream * Upstream is not done with the patch set, so there will be eventually changes. But I'd like to fix the FTBFS ASAP. * The patches needs to be renamed and described and what not. * There are certainly quite a few deprecation warnings during build, but I'm not going to fix them. Preferring smaller patch set + better backward compatibility over them * I have not tested anything else, not even if it installs and if e.g. some gem can be installed.It seems to work ok. I've also succeeded creating and running a new Rails app (using Rails from Fedora).
* It would deserve test mass rebuild, or at least mass rebuild of packages which are currently FTBFS, such as Puma and possibly event machine. There is probably lot more what is wrong with the PR, so please don't merge it yet, but feel free to give it try. I just wanted to share my progress and save the work :)To test, I've built it in my testing COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/build/2934888/
I've also run gems rebuilds of dependent packages in an accompanying COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/builds/ (starting with 2934971)
There're multiple buildroots, so to if the build failed, you need to be check for rawhide buildroot specifically(I'll fix this next time). I'll check for any errors with my automation.
Pavel
Vít
ruby-sig mailing list --ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toruby-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 on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
I have merged the https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103 and build Ruby to fix the FTBFS. The upstream PR is not finalized yet, so I expect some changes in the future. I also apologize in advance should there be any unforeseen compatibility issue.
Vít
Dne 11. 11. 21 v 9:57 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
There seems to be one legitimate issue with Puma:
https://github.com/ruby/openssl/pull/399#issuecomment-966103794
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 10:53 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Thx for checking. It seems both Eventmachine as well as Puma fails. Neither of the failures looks related to OpenSSL, though.
Puma is broken by RPM. I have pushed the fix:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/c/29a98a559d6f96e47e7aefc3f8...
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 2:46 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:14 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103Hello, it looks good.
This ^^ is first draft of Ruby which should be compatible with OpenSSL 3.x. So far, I was just successful to build the package including passing the test suite. Nevertheless: * Some test cases are disabled, because they fail even upstream * Upstream is not done with the patch set, so there will be eventually changes. But I'd like to fix the FTBFS ASAP. * The patches needs to be renamed and described and what not. * There are certainly quite a few deprecation warnings during build, but I'm not going to fix them. Preferring smaller patch set + better backward compatibility over them * I have not tested anything else, not even if it installs and if e.g. some gem can be installed.It seems to work ok. I've also succeeded creating and running a new Rails app (using Rails from Fedora).
* It would deserve test mass rebuild, or at least mass rebuild of packages which are currently FTBFS, such as Puma and possibly event machine. There is probably lot more what is wrong with the PR, so please don't merge it yet, but feel free to give it try. I just wanted to share my progress and save the work :)To test, I've built it in my testing COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/build/2934888/
I've also run gems rebuilds of dependent packages in an accompanying COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/builds/ (starting with 2934971)
There're multiple buildroots, so to if the build failed, you need to be check for rawhide buildroot specifically(I'll fix this next time). I'll check for any errors with my automation.
Pavel
Vít
ruby-sig mailing list --ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toruby-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 on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
And I see immediately one problematic package in Koschei:
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-net-ssh
Not a surprise :/
Vít
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 23:01 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
I have merged the https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103 and build Ruby to fix the FTBFS. The upstream PR is not finalized yet, so I expect some changes in the future. I also apologize in advance should there be any unforeseen compatibility issue.
Vít
Dne 11. 11. 21 v 9:57 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
There seems to be one legitimate issue with Puma:
https://github.com/ruby/openssl/pull/399#issuecomment-966103794
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 10:53 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Thx for checking. It seems both Eventmachine as well as Puma fails. Neither of the failures looks related to OpenSSL, though.
Puma is broken by RPM. I have pushed the fix:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/c/29a98a559d6f96e47e7aefc3f8...
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 2:46 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:14 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103Hello, it looks good.
This ^^ is first draft of Ruby which should be compatible with OpenSSL 3.x. So far, I was just successful to build the package including passing the test suite. Nevertheless: * Some test cases are disabled, because they fail even upstream * Upstream is not done with the patch set, so there will be eventually changes. But I'd like to fix the FTBFS ASAP. * The patches needs to be renamed and described and what not. * There are certainly quite a few deprecation warnings during build, but I'm not going to fix them. Preferring smaller patch set + better backward compatibility over them * I have not tested anything else, not even if it installs and if e.g. some gem can be installed.It seems to work ok. I've also succeeded creating and running a new Rails app (using Rails from Fedora).
* It would deserve test mass rebuild, or at least mass rebuild of packages which are currently FTBFS, such as Puma and possibly event machine. There is probably lot more what is wrong with the PR, so please don't merge it yet, but feel free to give it try. I just wanted to share my progress and save the work :)To test, I've built it in my testing COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/build/2934888/
I've also run gems rebuilds of dependent packages in an accompanying COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/builds/ (starting with 2934971)
There're multiple buildroots, so to if the build failed, you need to be check for rawhide buildroot specifically(I'll fix this next time). I'll check for any errors with my automation.
Pavel
Vít
ruby-sig mailing list --ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toruby-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 on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
https://github.com/net-ssh/net-ssh/issues/843
Reported here ^^ for the beginning.
Vít
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 23:05 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
And I see immediately one problematic package in Koschei:
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-net-ssh
Not a surprise :/
Vít
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 23:01 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
I have merged the https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103 and build Ruby to fix the FTBFS. The upstream PR is not finalized yet, so I expect some changes in the future. I also apologize in advance should there be any unforeseen compatibility issue.
Vít
Dne 11. 11. 21 v 9:57 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
There seems to be one legitimate issue with Puma:
https://github.com/ruby/openssl/pull/399#issuecomment-966103794
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 10:53 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Thx for checking. It seems both Eventmachine as well as Puma fails. Neither of the failures looks related to OpenSSL, though.
Puma is broken by RPM. I have pushed the fix:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puma/c/29a98a559d6f96e47e7aefc3f8...
Vít
Dne 08. 11. 21 v 2:46 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:14 PM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/103Hello, it looks good.
This ^^ is first draft of Ruby which should be compatible with OpenSSL 3.x. So far, I was just successful to build the package including passing the test suite. Nevertheless: * Some test cases are disabled, because they fail even upstream * Upstream is not done with the patch set, so there will be eventually changes. But I'd like to fix the FTBFS ASAP. * The patches needs to be renamed and described and what not. * There are certainly quite a few deprecation warnings during build, but I'm not going to fix them. Preferring smaller patch set + better backward compatibility over them * I have not tested anything else, not even if it installs and if e.g. some gem can be installed.It seems to work ok. I've also succeeded creating and running a new Rails app (using Rails from Fedora).
* It would deserve test mass rebuild, or at least mass rebuild of packages which are currently FTBFS, such as Puma and possibly event machine. There is probably lot more what is wrong with the PR, so please don't merge it yet, but feel free to give it try. I just wanted to share my progress and save the work :)To test, I've built it in my testing COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/build/2934888/
I've also run gems rebuilds of dependent packages in an accompanying COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/builds/ (starting with 2934971)
There're multiple buildroots, so to if the build failed, you need to be check for rawhide buildroot specifically(I'll fix this next time). I'll check for any errors with my automation.
Pavel
Vít
ruby-sig mailing list --ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toruby-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 on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Pavel Valena -
Vít Ondruch