Dne 25. 12. 24 v 13:57 Mamoru TASAKA via ruby-sig napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch via ruby-sig wrote on 2024/12/24 2:09:Dear Rubyists,This is likely my last update prior official Ruby 3.4 release. So here I am with update to a11bb36316. The build is available here:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127139135 While the mini mass rebuild is churning here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vondruch/mpb.30/builds/What I find a bit unfortunate that FESCo was not able to approve the change. But I hope they'll approve in the ticket and we will be able to start with the mass rebuild with the new year. Until then, please give it a try or better, enjoy some well deserve rest.See you in new year. VítWell, looks like afterhttps://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/9e0eb9778d557ef59a541a65be658040951de5be#diff-1bc0d6e0a7ee599f3652ef78aa8bc9f7fc976d55362eef5f4442cfc4ce002c3f(this is from: https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/pull/8340 ) it seems that $ gem install --document=rdoc,ri (in %gem_install)no longer generates rdoc/ri documentation even if the above option is explicitly specified...(The above commit is after the commit you checked: a11bb36316)So... how should we handle this? Revert the above change (in lib/rubygems/rdoc.rb) or report rubygems upstream
Looking closer, this is ugly :/ There are exceptions all over the place. Already looking toward Ruby 3.5, which should help to clear up the RDoc situation. Anyway, I see two options forward.
1) Since we are basically doing bundled gem from default gem, it could make sense to include the lib/rubygems_plugin.rb file, which is missing in from the Ruby source repository (+ the plugin loading stub).
2) The other is to "revert" the patch above. What we would essentially need is the have the `Gem.done_installing(&Gem::RDoc.method(:generation_hook))` executed unconditionally, while I believe the tests still needs to be disabled.
There is also third option, update the independent rubygem-rdoc and that should also help. However this would be problematic for ELN, etc.
I'll try to go with the first option, which is a bit cleaner IMHO, while we might face issues should the file change upstream. But if we do, then we can try something else, right? :)
Vít
Regards, Mamoru
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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
