On 30 October 2017 at 11:50, Gaël Chamoulaud <gcham...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 25/Oct/2017 15:22, James Hogarth wrote: >> On 13 October 2017 at 20:49, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 4 October 2017 at 15:16, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5 September 2017 at 08:15, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 5 Sep 2017 8:05 am, "Vít Ondruch" <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Dne 4.9.2017 v 14:58 James Hogarth napsal(a): >> >>> > >> >>> > I'm in two minds whether to suggest we leave facter as it is for >> >>> > F25-27 or whether to at least update those to 2.5.1 which won't have >> >>> > the drastic 3.0 changes. >> >>> >> >>> For me it is always clear. Keep the branched versions as they are unless >> >>> you have really good arguments for upgrade. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Usually I'd agree... but facter is way behind on bug fixes and hasn't >> >>> seen an update in two years... a full three fedora releases ago. >> >>> >> >>> A move to the most recent 2.X on the branches whilst 3.X is arranged in >> >>> rawhide has decent justification... but I'll wait on what to do with that >> >>> after a discussion with upstream. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > I've also not looked fully into the EPEL situation but from an initial >> >>> > cursory look of gemfiles I think the ruby versions there are out of >> >>> > their support matrix. >> >>> >> >>> Well, there is still just Ruby 1.8.7 in EPEL6 and these are rather old >> >>> and incompatible (mainly due to encoding support and character >> >>> handling). It should be better in EPEL7 with Ruby 2.0.0. Upstreams tends >> >>> to drop official support for older Rubies (without any real reason >> >>> except reducing the support matrix), but the code typically works >> >>> (although you might need to relax some dependencies). >> >>> >> >>> One thing to always consider is the dependency chain, including the >> >>> build dependencies ... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Yeah this is another package that's just going to be left at an old >> >>> version in EPEL6 I fear... I really wish we could link to Red Hat SCL >> >>> packages for these situations... but oh well. Since my only >> >>> direction/goal I >> >>> this endeavour is the removal is the requirement of net-tools, and that's >> >>> only Fedora, I'm not going to worry about it for now. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Hi guys, >> >> >> >> Here's a status update for this change. >> >> >> >> I have a Facter 3.9.0 package I'm happy with on initial testing. I'll be >> >> writing up a F28 self contained change shortly. I've tested puppet in F26 >> >> against this and it appears to behave correctly - would appreciate more >> >> eyes >> >> on it though. >> >> >> >> I'm having issues with cmake3 in EPEL7 not picking up the cmake files from >> >> the leatherman package preventing me from building there - so that will >> >> stay >> >> on 2.5.X for now, similar to F26 and F27 will be updated shortly staying >> >> within the 2.5.X series for compatibilty concerns. >> >> >> >> If you'd like to test the facter 3.9.0 packages this COPR can be used: >> >> >> >> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jhogarth/facter3/ >> >> >> >> We'll need to coordinate on the F28 package so puppet can depend on >> >> ruby-facter instead of facter ... I'll do a repoquery to see if I can >> >> locate >> >> any similar packages using the ruby bindings as well. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> James >> >> >> > >> > To keep the ruby sig and relevant package owners/reviewers in the loop ... >> > the change for Facter3 in F28 has been approved. >> > >> > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1767#comment-472520 >> > >> > I'll get the boost-nowide review request in over the weekend, which will >> > unblock leatherman and cpp-hocon can then be submitted as well. >> > >> > The initial spec files that need a final tuning for submission, and which >> > were used for the COPR, can be found here: >> > >> > https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/facter3/ >> > >> > We've got plenty of time according to the schedule but it'd be nice to get >> > this resolved in rawhide sooner rather than later :) >> > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule >> > >> > James >> > >> >> Hi guys, >> >> Further update for this update ;) >> >> General stuff >> ------------------- >> >> The work of Denis Arnaud has got boost157 packaged as an option in >> EPEL (as of a few minutes or so when I approve the package review). >> >> The boost-nowide dependency has it's own review and has been tested in >> both F27 and F26 as well as with the boost157 package to build >> leatherman, and packages further down the tree. >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502584 >> >> The leatherman spec in my fedorapeople space was used to build the >> version in the COPR with cpp-hocon using that leatherman package to >> build and facter3 using that to build/run. >> >> https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/facter3/ >> >> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jhogarth/facter3/ >> >> I've not submitted the cpp-hocon review yet as it's dependent on the >> boost-nowide one anyway. >> >> Obviously as you can see in the COPR the new facter 3 builds fine in >> EPEL7 and Fedora with the boost157 package and these two dependencies >> in place. >> >> This is all fine for Fedora and puts us in a great place to get this >> all into place in plenty of time before F28 even branches. >> >> Note that although I've built facter3 in the COPR for EPEL7 (using >> that boost157 package) and facter itself works fine ... the older >> puppet in EPEL (3.6.2 in EPEL7) is not compatible with the more recent >> facter. >> >> I'm not sure exactly yet where the specific breakage happens and >> haven't had time to dig through all the old puppet release notes to >> see where the facter compatibility changes. >> >> Does the Ruby-SIG have any plans to get puppet updated in EPEL7? If so >> we can get the new facter there too ... if not we'll need to hold back >> and I'm not even sure if the 2.5.X releases of facter would be >> compatible. >> >> Specific questions to people >> -------------------------------------- >> >> Haikel, have you had time to review the changes to the leatherman spec >> and patches proposed to bring your review up to date? Do you have time >> to finish through on that review once the boost-nowide module is >> approved? >> >> Gaël, are you happy remaining POC or would you prefer I get any bug >> reports after we push facter3 out? > > Hi James, > > A big sorry about the slow reactivity from my part! > > I think I've been promoted to POC since the new fedora sources web > application, > and I appreciate you request to take over it. > >> Vit, are you okay to adjust the puppet dependency in fedora to >> ruby-facter once we get the dependencies built or would you prefer I >> coordinate that change with the facter update as a Proven Packager? >> >> Thanks for all you help and time guys, >> >> James > > With Gratitude, > > Gaël
Hey no worries and thanks :) FYI everything is aligned now so as soon as Haikel has done his leatherman build in rawhide I'll be building Facter 3 there. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
