Vít Ondruch wrote, at 07/18/2011 04:37 PM +9:00: > Dne 18.7.2011 01:42, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a): >> Mo Morsi wrote, at 07/15/2011 11:15 AM +9:00: >>> On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories. >>>> However, as of now, the main package rubygem-rspec was not migrated to >>>> RSpec 2.x and still provides RSpec 1.3 functionality. It would be nice, >>>> if we could finish the migration to RSpec 2.x lets say in F17 time >>>> frame. What are your opinions? The list of packages which depends on >>>> RSpec 1.3 is attached bellow. >>>> >>> IMO F17 seems like a reasonable timeline for this. At that point we >>> might also want to provide a rubygem-rspec1-compat package for any gems >>> whose upstream communities haven't switched over. >>> >> Can't we do this (i.e. rspec 2 by default, rspec 1 move to compat mode) >> before F-16/17 branch (i.e. 2011-07-26)? > > Is it worth of it? We can push the change right now, but it will make > some packages FTBFS. Don't take me wrong, I personally +1 for this > change, I just wanted to give a chance to others to be prepared.
With rubygem-rspec1 imported, I will change all packages which currently have "BR: rubygem(rspec)" to "BR: rubygem(rspec1)" and rebuild all those srpms. If those srpm don't have FTBFS issue right now, they should also succeed on building after this change (if they fail to build after this change, I guess they already had FTBFS issue) > >> I prepared rubygem-rspec-2.6.0 and rubygem-"rspec1"-1.3.2: >> http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Trial-rpms/rubygem-rspec-2.6.0-1.fc.src.rpm >> http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Trial-rpms/rubygem-rspec1-1.3.2-2.fc.src.rpm >> http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Trial-rpms/rubygem-rspec.spec >> http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Trial-rpms/rubygem-rspec1.spec > > Is the change in folder structure, i.e. rename from rspec to rspec1 > really necessary? The gems don't conflicts, so it seems to me too much > effort for no benefit. Well, - We cannot have two "rubygem-rspec" srpm (on Fedora repository), so anyway one of these should be renamed on srpm name level. With srpm renamed to "rubygem-rspec1", I think reconstructuring directories and especially changing rspec-1.X.gemspec to rspec"1"-1.X.gemspec would be less confusing as it "matches" currently rubygem based rpms' structure - Anyway I think we can agree with any of the ways. >> With these rpms, >> - people who wants to use rspec 1 has to specify it as >> (Build)Requires: rubygem(rspec1), rubygem(rspec), and to use >> "gem 'rspec1'", not "gem 'rspec'". /usr/bin/spec remains as before. >> - people who want to use rspec 2 will specify it as >> (Build)Requires: rubygem(rspec), and "gem 'rspec'". Note that >> /usr/bin/rspec is (already) in rubygem-rspec-core-2.6.4. >> >> If we can agree with these changes, I will submit these specs/srpms for >> review requests. Regards, Mamoru _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
