----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondr...@redhat.com> > To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 10:28:42 AM > Subject: Re: ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3 > > > Dne 01. 10. 20 v 20:21 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondr...@redhat.com> > >> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:02:02 PM > >> Subject: Re: ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3 > >> > >> > >> Dne 01. 10. 20 v 11:47 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondr...@redhat.com> > >>>> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 11:31:10 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dne 30. 09. 20 v 22:16 Jaroslav Prokop napsal(a): > >>>> > >>>>> On 30/09/2020 21:33, Pavel Valena wrote: > >>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> following on my previous email (bellow), I'm working on regenerating > >>>>>> the list of packages `ruby-rails` group in Koschei. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've done some fixes to package resolving in my script (I'm left with > >>>>>> 3 unresolved /ambiguous/ packages as well), and got current list: > >>>>>> https://gist.github.com/pvalena/ccdd482ace158bc55c891528e2be22ce > >>>> I think there is missing rubygem-mysql2, which might not appear > >>>> anywhere, because it is just optional, but we should not forget to > >>>> include it in the list. For the similar reason, it would be nice to keep > >>>> rubygem-mongo on the list. > >>> Hmm, but if it's not in the buildroot, should we concern ourselves with > >>> it? > >>> Or do we care for weak dependencies the same? I could add those > >>> explicitly > >>> (Recommends -> Require for those builds), or could be just on some > >>> "Includelist" WDYT? > >> > >> I think there should be some initial list of packages we do care about, > >> this should be probably: > >> > >> ruby > > Not sure about ruby itself. Rails could theoretically run on any ruby > > runtime, right? > > > We don't have any other runtime ...
Yes, not now. I was just making a point on Ruby on Rails not being tied to one. > > > > Anyway there's not much harm to have it there, if you insist. I'm simply > > missing the point, ... now I realized. We don't have a `ruby` Koschei > > group. Maybe that's something we want instead? > > > It is probably easier to search for "ruby". I don't want to create some > dump groups, which will nobody care about. "rails" group would deserve > more attention on itself. Right. `ruby` is probably sufficient to build ruby (no bootstrap package atm.). That doesn't explain why it should be in ruby-rails group (apart from `ruby` in the name), but like I said before, there's no strong argument against, so I'll keep it on "includelist". > > > > > >> rubygem-rails and actually everything what appears in the Gemfile of > >> fresh RoR app > > Ok, good idea. Although we currently don't have the asset pipeline > > (webpacker). > > > Please don't add on the list any packages we don't have (sorry, couldn't > resist :D) Sure, I didn't mean to. What I wanted to point out, is that the fresh RoR Gemfile needs to be modified, to be usable in our Fedora. > > > > > >> and some DB adapters: > >> > >> rubygem-mysql2 > >> > >> rubygem-mongo > >> > >> rubygem-pg (mongo got somehow pulled in, but it is just by coincidence > >> I'd say). > > > > Yes, I think this corresponds to comps group. I'll take all packages from > > there. > > > Good idea. > > > V. > Pavel # Note to self: investigate rubygem-mongo. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
