One more thing. You would find format errors for your modification part if you run `rubocop`.
``` $ rubocop operating_system.rb ``` Jun On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Jun Aruga <jar...@redhat.com> wrote: > Vit thanks for the working. > > I tested it. > >> 1) If "gem install" as a regular user still works the same. > > > Right now there is a 2 type of packages. > Some gem package are "default", others are not. > The gem package that is managed the ruby sub package is not "default" > like "bigdecimal" > > What is the future plan for these kind of pacakge such as "bigdecimal"? > 1. These are "default" removing the sub package? > Or 2. Current default package like "cmath" becomes not "default" > creating the sub package? > > > Fedora Ruby by regular user. > > > ``` > [mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep default > 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) > fiddle (default: 1.0.0) > fileutils (default: 1.0.1) > gdbm (default: 2.0.0) > ipaddr (default: 1.2.0) > 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) > > [mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep -v default > 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) > ``` > > On upstream Ruby > > ``` > $ 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) > ``` > >> 2) If "gem install" as root still works the same. > > "gem list" result is same for regular user's situation. > > I found the difference of the behavior between Upstream Ruby and Fedora Ruby. > Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install". > > 1-1. Upstream Ruby by root user > > [root@unused-4-164 ~]# /usr/local/ruby-2.5.0.pre1/bin/gem install digest > Fetching: digest-0.0.1.gem (100%) > Successfully installed digest-0.0.1 > Parsing documentation for digest-0.0.1 > Installing ri documentation for digest-0.0.1 > Done installing documentation for digest after 0 seconds > 1 gem installed > > 2-1. Fedora Ruby by root user > > <mock-chroot> sh-4.4# gem install webrick > Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%) > Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1 > 1 gem installed > > 2-2. Fedora Ruby by regular user > > [mockbuild@c187f3581b4e45ecb2837fe5ab6a0af5 ~]$ gem install webrick > Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%) > WARNING: You don't have /builddir/bin in your PATH, > gem executables will not run. > Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1 > Parsing documentation for webrick-1.4.1 > Installing ri documentation for webrick-1.4.1 > Done installing documentation for webrick after 0 seconds > 1 gem installed > > > I do not know this difference is this Fedora Ruby specific. > This might be related to this issue? > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/9 > >> 3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs > and runs just fine. >> 4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and > > I could not test below cases. I tried to build rubygem-bundler for > your Ruby RPMs. > But I could not build because of conflict with ruby-2.4.2. > > rubygem-bundler > > ``` > $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --with tests -n *.rpm > ... > Error: > Problem: cannot install both ruby-libs-2.4.2-85.fc28.x86_64 and > ruby-libs-2.5.0-0.1.r61214.fc28.x86_64 > ``` > > > Jun > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> Dne 14.12.2017 v 19:03 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >>> >>> Dne 14.12.2017 v 18:41 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >>>> Dne 14.12.2017 v 18:23 Jun Aruga napsal(a): >>>>> 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. >>>> Interesting. That is definitely unintentional. Will take a look into it. >>>> >>> This appears to be related to the default location of where the gems are >>> installed. Upstream Ruby installs the gems into their directory, we >>> install the gems into home directory. And therefore RubyGems on Fedora >>> are trying to load the specifications for the default gems from the home >>> directory "/builddir/.gem/ruby/specifications/default" (testing in >>> mock). So far, we never had the default gem specifications, so this was >>> not issue. >>> >>> >> >> >> Here is updated build, which should fix the issues: >> >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23793602 >> >> The patch used to fix this in attachment. I'd love some feedback prior I >> push this into git. Mainly, I'd like you to test: >> >> 1) If "gem install" as a regular user still works the same. >> 2) If "gem install" as root still works the same. >> 3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs >> and runs just fine. >> 4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and >> installed correctly. >> 5) Any additional scenario you can think of ... >> >> Thx for testing. >> >> >> Vít >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> > > > > -- > Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com > IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno, > Czech Republic -- Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
