Dne 27.2.2012 14:43, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
Dne 20.2.2012 13:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
Thank you. Unfortunately you do
> - Original Message -
> > - Original Message -
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > Dne 20.2.2012 13:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> > > > > On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > > > >> Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you. Unfortunately
- Original Message -
> - Original Message -
> > - Original Message -
> > > Dne 20.2.2012 13:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> > > > On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > > >> Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you. Unfortunately you do not solv
- Original Message -
> - Original Message -
> > Dne 20.2.2012 13:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> > > On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > >> Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> > >>
> > >> Thank you. Unfortunately you do not solve how to migrate from
> > >> BR:
> > >> rub
- Original Message -
> Dne 20.2.2012 13:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> > On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> >>
> >> Thank you. Unfortunately you do not solve how to migrate from BR:
> >> rubygem(rspec-core) back to BR: rubygem(rspec). The m
Dne 20.2.2012 13:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
Thank you. Unfortunately you do not solve how to migrate from BR:
rubygem(rspec-core) back to BR: rubygem(rspec). The main issue is
that rubygem-rspec-core was patched
On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 02/20/2012 04:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.2.2012 20:40, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/25/2012 04:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that we have almost eliminated usage of RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery
Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 02/20/2012 04:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.2.2012 20:40, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/25/2012 04:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that we have almost eliminated usage of RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatre
On 02/20/2012 04:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.2.2012 20:40, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/25/2012 04:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that we have almost eliminated usage of RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
rubygem-ffi-0:1.
Dne 13.2.2012 20:40, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/25/2012 04:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that we have almost eliminated usage of RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
rubygem-ffi-0:1.0.9-2.fc16.src
rubygem-linode-0:0.6.2-1.fc15
On 01/25/2012 04:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that we have almost eliminated usage of RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
rubygem-ffi-0:1.0.9-2.fc16.src
rubygem-linode-0:0.6.2-1.fc15.src
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatr
Dne 10.2.2012 07:55, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
Hello everyone,
Continuing on this topic..
I am having severe trouble migrating this (and likely all of its other sub
rubygem packages)
Here is SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~spstarr/packages/rubygem-dm-
core-1.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
- I renamed all the
Hello everyone,
Continuing on this topic..
I am having severe trouble migrating this (and likely all of its other sub
rubygem packages)
Here is SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~spstarr/packages/rubygem-dm-
core-1.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
- I renamed all the _spec.rb files accordingly
- i attempted t
Hi guys,
It seems that we have almost eliminated usage of RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
rubygem-ffi-0:1.0.9-2.fc16.src
rubygem-linode-0:0.6.2-1.fc15.src
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires 'rubygem(rspec)'
aeolus-conductor-de
Dne 20.1.2012 22:55, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/12/2012 08:56 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
There have been nice progress in this matter, nevertheless, there are
still some packages which depends on RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
On 01/12/2012 08:56 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
There have been nice progress in this matter, nevertheless, there are
still some packages which depends on RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
deltacloud-core-0:0.4.1-6.fc17.src (mfojti
Thank you. It seems that upstream version is using RSpec 2.x anyway, so
it should be straight forward.
Vit
Dne 12.1.2012 18:53, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Linode is in a FTBFS state anyway, due to some httparty changes.
When I am able to fix linode, it will require rspec 2.x.
On Thu, Jan 12
Linode is in a FTBFS state anyway, due to some httparty changes.
When I am able to fix linode, it will require rspec 2.x.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> There have been nice progress in this matter, nevertheless, there are still
> some packages which depends o
Hi guys,
There have been nice progress in this matter, nevertheless, there are
still some packages which depends on RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
deltacloud-core-0:0.4.1-6.fc17.src (mfojtik, clalance)
jruby-0:1.6.2-2.fc16.src (mmors
On Friday, November 18, 2011 10:23:00 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Hi Shawn,
>
> No we don't, but I can throw a few points here, what I am typically doing.
>
> 1) Replace the BR: rubygem(rspec) => BR: rubygem(rspec-core). Typically
> I add above some comment like "# Use rspec-core until rspec are n
Dne 17.11.2011 00:55, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:48:22 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> Here is updated list of Rawhide packages which still depends on RSpec 1.3:
>>
>
>
>> Vit
> Do we have a simple howto to convert to 2.0? Would make things easy for
On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:48:22 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Here is updated list of Rawhide packages which still depends on RSpec 1.3:
>
> Vit
Do we have a simple howto to convert to 2.0? Would make things easy for me to
get my rubygems ready.
Thanks,
Shawn.
___
Hello everybody,
Here is updated list of Rawhide packages which still depends on RSpec 1.3:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
deltacloud-core-0:0.3.0-11.fc16.src (mfojtik)
jruby-0:1.6.2-2.fc16.src (mmorsi)
rubygem-bcrypt-ruby-0:2.1.2-2.fc15.src (mmorsi
Hello everybody,
Here is updated list of Rawhide packages which still depends on RSpec 1.3:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
deltacloud-core-0:0.3.0-11.fc16.src (mfojtik)
jruby-0:1.6.2-2.fc16.src (mmorsi)
rubygem-bcrypt-ruby-0:2.1.2-2.fc15.src (mmors
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 08:21:16 PM Shawn Starr wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 05:17:54 PM Michael Stahnke wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Shawn Starr
wrote:
> > > Thanks, all my current SRPMs are here at
> > > http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora-work
> > >
Some updates,
- I
test validation I can
switch all of mine.
Otherwise, I'm not sure how to proceed.
- Original Message -
From: Shawn Starr
To: Ruby SIG mailing list
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:24:34 AM
Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
then I am getting conflicting vi
iling list
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:53:07 AM
Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
Fun, I was looking at the release notes for latest datamapper and it seems they
highlight "datamapper" over "data_mapper":
http://datamapper.org/articles/datamapp
Upstream has confirmed to me that data_mapper is the preferred name, as there
is also rubygem-data_objects.
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruch
To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:04:32 AM
Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
Dne
So it seems extlib can be migrated to the RSpec 2.x quite easily. See
the attached patch.
Btw the package build fails later due to YARD documentation build using
Rake. I consider using of Rake as bad practice since Rakefiles are
usually too tightly integrated with developer setup, therefore ca
Probably, but its wrong anyway. For example sqlite3-ruby was renamed to
sqlite3. Nevertheless if you try to install sqlite3-ruby, it installs
sqlite3 anyway. Not sure how is that done, but it should be probably
reported upstream.
Vit
Dne 27.7.2011 09:53, Marek Goldmann napsal(a):
> Fun, I was
Fun, I was looking at the release notes for latest datamapper and it seems they
highlight "datamapper" over "data_mapper":
http://datamapper.org/articles/datamapper-110-released.html
It looks like they used the "dash version" earlier:
http://datamapper.org/articles/datamapper-10
Dne 27.7.2011 09:08, Marek Goldmann napsal(a):
> On 27 lip 2011, at 09:04, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, why you prefer "data_mapper" over "data mapper"?
> Good question, especially when upstream calls it "datamapper":
>
> https://rubygems.org/gems/datamapper
>
> --Marek
>
> __
On 27 lip 2011, at 09:04, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, why you prefer "data_mapper" over "data mapper"?
Good question, especially when upstream calls it "datamapper":
https://rubygems.org/gems/datamapper
--Marek
___
ruby-sig
Dne 26.7.2011 18:03, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
> Thanks, all my current SRPMs are here at
> http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora-work
Thank you.
> Note rubygem-datamapper is now rubygem-data_mapper so ignore the latter SRPM.
>
Just out of curiosity, why you prefer "data_mapper" over "datamapper"?
V
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 05:17:54 PM Michael Stahnke wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Shawn Starr wrote:
> > Thanks, all my current SRPMs are here at
> > http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora-work
> >
> > Note rubygem-datamapper is now rubygem-data_mapper so ignore the latter
> > SRPM.
> >
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Shawn Starr wrote:
> Thanks, all my current SRPMs are here at
> http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora-work
>
> Note rubygem-datamapper is now rubygem-data_mapper so ignore the latter SRPM.
>
> I believe someone owns rubygem-extlib in EPEL but not for Fedora since it
in it.
--- On Tue, 7/26/11, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> From: Vít Ondruch
> Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 3:35 PM
> I will take a look tomorrow on your
> rubygem-extlib and will see if tha
e in that effort.
>
> --- On Tue, 7/26/11, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> From: Vít Ondruch
>> Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
>> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 7:39 AM
>> Could you please try to migrate
I'm not sure on that. I'm just packaging them for OpenNebula, I have little
ruby development experience. I would need assistance in that effort.
--- On Tue, 7/26/11, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> From: Vít Ondruch
> Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.
Could you please try to migrate them to RSpec 2.x? It should not be a
big problem (although I understand that it requires more work).
Vit
Dne 25.7.2011 19:01, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
> Im about to submit whole bunch of rubygems to Fedora. Most of them use rspec
> 1.3.
>
> On Mon Jul 25th, 2011
Im about to submit whole bunch of rubygems to Fedora. Most of them use rspec
1.3.
On Mon Jul 25th, 2011 10:10 AM EDT Mo Morsi wrote:
>Since this list is a lot shorter than the corresponding list in Fedora,
>perhaps we can get these package maintainers to update to RSpec 2.
>
>Otherwise, perhaps
> I'm cool with this! This would be same as current Fedora rawhide state. After
> upgrading above packages we could bump rubygem-rspec to 2.x.
>
> Seems reasonable?
>
> --Marek
>
Sounds good to me.
-Mo
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedor
Hiya,
On 25 lip 2011, at 16:10, Mo Morsi wrote:
> Since this list is a lot shorter than the corresponding list in Fedora,
> perhaps we can get these package maintainers to update to RSpec 2.
We're talking here about:
rubygem-extlib-0:0.9.13-5.el6.src (stahnma)
rubygem-facon-0:0.4.1-2.el6
Since this list is a lot shorter than the corresponding list in Fedora,
perhaps we can get these package maintainers to update to RSpec 2.
Otherwise, perhaps we can leave it in there as there for now, push the
rspec-core and other subcomponents to EPEL, and update the BoxGrinder
RPM to depend o
For EPEL 6 - exactly 5:
$ repoquery --repoid=epel-source --arch=src --whatrequires 'rubygem(rspec)'
rubygem-extlib-0:0.9.13-5.el6.src
rubygem-facon-0:0.4.1-2.el6.src
rubygem-rack-test-0:0.5.4-1.el6.src
rubygem-thin-0:1.2.8-4.el6.src
rubygem-uuidtools-0:2.1.1-1.el6.src
For EPEL 5 - also 5:
$ repo
RSpec 2 as they are in F16 can be imported into EPEL right now. Any idea
how many packages depends on RSpec in EPEL?
Vit
Dne 21.7.2011 20:49, Marek Goldmann napsal(a):
> There is one more thing:
>
> Now I upgraded to RSpec 2 in Fedora. I plan to submit BoxGrinder to EPEL 6,
> but there is on
There is one more thing:
Now I upgraded to RSpec 2 in Fedora. I plan to submit BoxGrinder to EPEL 6, but
there is only RSpec 1.3. What would be the approach to bump RSpec there?
--Marek
On 18 lip 2011, at 18:49, Mo Morsi wrote:
> Perhaps we can shoot for doing this w/ F17, and if we are unable
Perhaps we can shoot for doing this w/ F17, and if we are unable to
migrate all the dependent packages over, then add a rspec1 compat
package to buy us some more time.
In any case, would rather push this off to F17 myself as a few of us are
going through and updating alot of the rails related plug
rubygem-rspec1 package is of course one possibility, but I would be
happier if we never introduce such package. This package would be
introduced only for backward compatibility and people (developers) would
be never motivated to move forward. This is against one of Fedora Fs
(First).
The bigge
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 07/18/2011 04:37 PM +9:00:
> Dne 18.7.2011 01:42, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
>> Mo Morsi wrote, at 07/15/2011 11:15 AM +9:00:
>>> On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories.
However
Dne 18.7.2011 01:42, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
> Mo Morsi wrote, at 07/15/2011 11:15 AM +9:00:
>> On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories.
>>> However, as of now, the main package rubygem-rspec was not migra
Dne 18.7.2011 03:05, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 4:42 PM, TASAKA Mamoru
> wrote:
>> Mo Morsi wrote, at 07/15/2011 11:15 AM +9:00:
>>> On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories.
>
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 4:42 PM, TASAKA Mamoru
wrote:
> Mo Morsi wrote, at 07/15/2011 11:15 AM +9:00:
>> On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories.
>>> However, as of now, the main package rubygem-rspec was
Mo Morsi wrote, at 07/15/2011 11:15 AM +9:00:
> On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories.
>> However, as of now, the main package rubygem-rspec was not migrated to
>> RSpec 2.x and still provides RSpec 1.3 func
IT.rb group:
> https://docspace.corp.redhat.com/groups/itrb
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Vít Ondruch"
> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 8:36:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
>
> The most diffe
8:36:08 AM
Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
The most differences are usually in spec_helper.rb if you are using one,
otherwise there are usually no issues.
Vit
Dne 15.7.2011 14:19, Marek Goldmann napsal(a):
> Tyler,
>
> Depending on your code - migration can be pretty eas
The most differences are usually in spec_helper.rb if you are using one,
otherwise there are usually no issues.
Vit
Dne 15.7.2011 14:19, Marek Goldmann napsal(a):
> Tyler,
>
> Depending on your code - migration can be pretty easy. It took me about 5
> minutes for example:
>
>
> https:/
Tyler,
Depending on your code - migration can be pretty easy. It took me about 5
minutes for example:
https://github.com/boxgrinder/boxgrinder-build/commit/bbd2083d4cf25d31cb7d0f7b75360dd379cace73
So I highly recommend doing that earlier than later :)
--Marek
On 2011-07-15, at 14:09,
Message -
From: "Mo Morsi"
To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 10:15:22 PM
Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in
On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories.
> However, as of now, the main package rubygem-rspec was not migrated to
> RSpec 2.x and still provides RSpec 1.3 functionality. It would be nice,
> if we could finish th
Vit,
Thanks for heads-up, I moved rubygem-boxgrinder* packages upstream to RSpec2.
Next releases will include the change.
--Marek
On 2011-07-13, at 08:53, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories.
> However, as of now, the main pa
61 matches
Mail list logo
