Perhaps we can shoot for doing this w/ F17, and if we are unable to migrate all the dependent packages over, then add a rspec1 compat package to buy us some more time.
In any case, would rather push this off to F17 myself as a few of us are going through and updating alot of the rails related plugins to be compatible w/ Rails 3 in Fedora. We're trying to get this done by the F16 deadline next week. -Mo On 07/18/2011 04:44 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > rubygem-rspec1 package is of course one possibility, but I would be > happier if we never introduce such package. This package would be > introduced only for backward compatibility and people (developers) would > be never motivated to move forward. This is against one of Fedora Fs > (First). > > The biggest problem with rubygem-rspec1 is that is has not defined its > lifespan and even if it has, there always be somebody requesting some > compatibility packages for whatever reason. I just tried to propose to > deprecate RSpec 1 for F17. > > The time which would be spent on reviewing/maintaining the RSpec 1.x > package would be better spent by ensuring that all packages work with > RSpec 2.x and submitting patches upstream if necessary. > > > Vit > > > > Dne 18.7.2011 09:59, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a): >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list > ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
