Do we have a requirements document about ruby packaging? I'm all for
avoiding upstream incompatibilities which we are currently not doing for
some reasons. And having an official requirements document will make
more clear what is a bug and what is a feature.
Jun Aruga wrote on 12/14/17 19:23:
OK thanks for the info.
Comparing the result of "gem list" command between upstream and our
Fedora package, I found the difference.
That can be confusing people.
Some of the gem are not shown in the result such as cmath for Fedora
package ruby.
When running below command on mock, we can load cmath that is not in
"gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
list".
```
irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
=> true
```
Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
upstream Ruby?
Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
We might also have to add additional gems as a recommendations like
bigdecimal in ruby.spec as the result.
```
Recommends: rubygem(bigdecimal) >= %{bigdecimal_version}
```
No "default: " in the gem list for Fedora package is from past
version. That's fine for me.
## Upstream
On current latest trunk.
$ dest/bin/gem list
*** LOCAL GEMS ***
bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
cmath (default: 1.0.0)
csv (default: 1.0.0)
date (default: 1.0.0)
dbm (default: 1.0.0)
digest (default: 0.1.0)
etc (default: 1.0.0)
fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
io-console (default: 0.4.6)
ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
json (default: 2.1.0)
openssl (default: 2.1.0)
psych (default: 3.0.0)
rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
scanf (default: 1.0.0)
sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
stringio (default: 0.0.1)
strscan (default: 0.0.1)
webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
zlib (default: 1.0.0)
## Building with your SRPM, and checked on mock environment
After installing all the binary RPMs from your SRPM
<mock-chroot> sh-4.4# gem list
*** LOCAL GEMS ***
bigdecimal (1.3.3)
did_you_mean (1.1.2)
io-console (0.4.6)
json (2.1.0)
minitest (5.10.3)
net-telnet (0.1.1)
openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
power_assert (1.1.1)
psych (3.0.0)
rake (12.3.0)
rdoc (6.0.0)
test-unit (3.2.7)
xmlrpc (0.3.0)
Jun
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote:
Well, this is not the way you can get the right archive. You have to use
something like:
~~~
tool/make-snapshot -packages=xz tmp
~~~
I previously published script which can generate the tarball using mock
and update the spec file:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UENHTEFIE5QSFN56QZA2O562QRSL6PSO/
V.
Dne 14.12.2017 v 15:16 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
Thanks for that.
I want you to add below kind of comment somethere in
"private-ruby-2.5" branch or master ruby.spec file a way to create
Source0 file.
# git clone https://github.com/ruby/ruby.git && cd ruby
# git archive --prefix=ruby-2.5.0-r61214/ 06d36a1 | xz >
ruby-2.5.0-r61214.tar.xz
Possible?
Jun
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi everybody,
Here is another test build of Ruby 2.5, this time it is r61214.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23681673
As always, you can find the .spec file in private-ruby-2.5 branch of
ruby dist-gits.
Vít
Dne 13.4.2017 v 10:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hi all,
Ruby 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5
development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got
r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in
dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18952639
One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification
of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is
one big TODO in the .spec file [1]. The question if each of the gems
should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully.
Vít
[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/ruby.spec?h=private-ruby-2.5#n919
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
