> although the first will likely need to be fixed also on our side by `BR: rubygem(base64)`
No, that should not be necessary. Asciidoctor no longer uses base64. The package must be using an out of date version of Asciidoctor. See https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/blob/main/CHANGELOG.adoc#2022-2024-03-08---mojavelinux The first issue seems to be related to a change in behavior in the inspect method. I'm willing to normalize the comparison strings in this case since this isn't really what the test is testing for. Best Regards, -Dan On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 4:08 AM Vít Ondruch via ruby-sig < ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > Dne 31. 10. 24 v 10:56 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > As its turn out, the Psych prerelease caused issues with installation. > > I did some changes in the spec file, extracting `%gem_versions` and > > `%gem_prerelease` macros. Now the installation works and the mass > > rebuild runs here: > > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vondruch/mpb/ > > > > One thing I have noticed so far is the extraction of gems from > > standard library, e.g. rubygem-asciidoctor [1] errors like: > > > > ~~~ > > > > 3) Error: > > > Minitest::Test::TestBlocks::TestImages#test_embeds_base64_encoded_data_uri_for_remote_image_when_imagesdir_is_a_URI_and_data_uri_attribute_is_set: > > > > > LoadError: cannot load such file -- base64 > > > > ~~~ > > > > > > And speaking of rubygem-asciidoctor, this also looks suspicious: > > > > > > ~~~ > > > > 1) Failure: > > > Minitest::Test::TestExtensions::TestIntegration#test_should_assign_captures_correctly_for_inline_macros > > > [test/extensions_test.rb:1382]: > > --- expected > > +++ actual > > @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ > > "target=\"\", attributes={} > > -target=\"value,key=val\", attributes={1=>\"value\", \"key\"=>\"val\", > > \"name\"=>\"value\"} > > -target=\"\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"\"} > > -target=\"[text]\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"[text]\"} > > +target=\"value,key=val\", attributes={1 => \"value\", \"key\" => > > \"val\", \"name\" => \"value\"} > > +target=\"\", attributes={\"text\" => \"\"} > > +target=\"[text]\", attributes={\"text\" => \"[text]\"} > > target=\"target\", attributes={} > > -target=\"target\", attributes={1=>\"value\", \"key\"=>\"val\", > > \"name\"=>\"value\"} > > -target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"\"} > > -target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"[text]\"} > > +target=\"target\", attributes={1 => \"value\", \"key\" => \"val\", > > \"name\" => \"value\"} > > +target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\" => \"\"} > > +target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\" => \"[text]\"} > > target=\"target\", attributes={}" > > > > ~~~ > > > > That suggest there were added spaces around hash rocket in `#inspect` > > output. That might be annoying. > > > Both reported here: > > https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/issues/4634 > > although the first will likely need to be fixed also on our side by `BR: > rubygem(base64)` > > > Vít > > > > > > > > Vít > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vondruch/mpb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08193141-rubygem-asciidoctor/builder-live.log.gz > > > > > > Dne 25. 10. 24 v 14:57 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > >> > >> Dne 25. 10. 24 v 14:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > >>> Hi everybody, > >>> > >>> It is the time of the year to look at upcoming version of Ruby. > >>> Therefore I have opened PR with the changes: > >>> > >>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/196 > >>> > >>> and here is the (running) scratch build: > >>> > >>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125191137 > >> > >> > >> There was failure on aarch64 due to hardening test. New build is > >> running here: > >> > >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125192840 > >> > >> > >> Vít > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> As already done previously, the PR is opened from my fork, so I'll > >>> be able to rebase it and pick some interesting bits into stable > >>> branches. I'll also push this branch into the official repo right > >>> before merge back into Rawhide to preserve the history. > >>> > >>> > >>> And here are some interesting bits I have noticed: > >>> > >>> * By far the biggest change are the unbundled default gems. While > >>> they are mostly kept in the `bundled-gems` subpackage, it grown > >>> significantly. I try to keep the file lists very similar to what > >>> would be the gem2rpm output. > >>> > >>> * The other thing is that Ruby upstream for some unknown reason > >>> decide to put ruby executable into `libexec` directory, but not only > >>> that. There is also `bin` directory nested under. That is quite > >>> non-standard place IMHO, therefore I have reverted the change back > >>> to the previous location and I hope that upstream will change their > >>> mind (or at least provide some reasoning). > >>> > >>> * From other changes, please note that the Prism parser is now used > >>> by default. I hope it won't have any compatibility impact, but who > >>> knows. > >>> > >>> > >>> I am not aware of anything else. > >>> > >>> As always, please give the Ruby 3.4 some testing and looking forward > >>> to your feedback. > >>> > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Vít > >>> > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > -- Dan Allen (he, him, his) | @mojavelinux | https://twitter.com/mojavelinux
-- _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
