Re: Ruby rawhide FTBFS

[Jun Aruga (he / him)]

> Here is the PR. Someone, please review.
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygems/pull-request/4

Here is the status. Review please. Thanks.

rpms/ruby
* rawhide: done (built)
* f37: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/136
* f36: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/137
* f35: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/138

rpms/rubygems
* rawhide: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygems/pull-request/4
(in review)

rpms/rubygem-bundler
* rawhide: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-bundler/pull-request/6
  The rubygem-bundler PR should be merged and built before the
rpms/rubygems because rubygems depends on the latest version of the
rubygem-bundler.

-- 
Jun | He - Him | Timezone: UTC+1 or 2, Czech Republic
See  for
the timezone.
___
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 03. 11. 22 v 16:37 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 15:37 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 22:22:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:07 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update 
was submitted for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the 
status and our options here?



Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b 


i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash



Thx for pointing out the exact commit.




I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need 
fixing anyway,



No doubt about it, the only question is when :)



however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems generally 
weigh too difficult...


As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained for 
13 months,

I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable



In this case, can we postpone landing the F37 update and include 
fixes for the affected packages into the update?


(I wish the notifications were not delayed by one week, but 
hopefully, the FMN is going to be fixed soon).




(and on the other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)



I support that, thx.

Vít



Well, the simplest solution for now is to revert the above change on 
F-37.



You mean the rspec-mocks commit? That is interesting idea.

In the man time, I have fixed rubygem-notiffany, but there seems to be 
several more:


https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/search?q=ruby_by=state-f38%2Crunning%2Cfailing%2Cname 



rubygem-listen



This ^^ should be also good to go:

https://github.com/guard/listen/pull/564


Vít




rubygem-guard

rubygem-guard-livereload

rubygem-memfs


And that actually might be it. I'll try to take look at listen.


Vít




OpenPGP_signature
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Mamoru TASAKA]

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/04 1:39:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 17:13 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/04 0:37:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 15:37 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 22:22:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:07 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update was submitted 
for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the status and our options here?


Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b
i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash



Thx for pointing out the exact commit.




I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need fixing anyway,



No doubt about it, the only question is when :)



however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems generally weigh too 
difficult...

As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained for 13 months,
I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable



In this case, can we postpone landing the F37 update and include fixes for the 
affected packages into the update?

(I wish the notifications were not delayed by one week, but hopefully, the FMN 
is going to be fixed soon).



(and on the other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)



I support that, thx.

Vít



Well, the simplest solution for now is to revert the above change on F-37.



You mean the rspec-mocks commit? That is interesting idea.


Yes, I mean that (i.e. revert e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b on 
Fedora 37
rubygem-rspec-mocks rpm). Koschei should report errors on rawhide (for rspec 
consumer
rpms) anyway.



Sounds good to me. We can re-enable this once we catch all the issues in 
Rawhide and patches are ready.

Thx


Vít



Okay, will revert on F-37 in rubygem-rspec-mocks-3.12.0-2.fc37 (on rawhide, the 
above
e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b change is still effective)

Mamoru





Mamoru



In the man time, I have fixed rubygem-notiffany, but there seems to be several 
more:

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/search?q=ruby_by=state-f38%2Crunning%2Cfailing%2Cname

rubygem-listen

rubygem-guard

rubygem-guard-livereload

rubygem-memfs


And that actually might be it. I'll try to take look at listen.


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

___
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


___
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

___
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 03. 11. 22 v 17:13 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/04 0:37:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 15:37 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 22:22:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:07 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update 
was submitted for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the 
status and our options here?



Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b 


i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash



Thx for pointing out the exact commit.




I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need 
fixing anyway,



No doubt about it, the only question is when :)



however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems 
generally weigh too difficult...


As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained 
for 13 months,

I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable



In this case, can we postpone landing the F37 update and include 
fixes for the affected packages into the update?


(I wish the notifications were not delayed by one week, but 
hopefully, the FMN is going to be fixed soon).




(and on the other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)



I support that, thx.

Vít



Well, the simplest solution for now is to revert the above change on 
F-37.



You mean the rspec-mocks commit? That is interesting idea.


Yes, I mean that (i.e. revert e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b 
on Fedora 37
rubygem-rspec-mocks rpm). Koschei should report errors on rawhide (for 
rspec consumer

rpms) anyway.



Sounds good to me. We can re-enable this once we catch all the issues in 
Rawhide and patches are ready.


Thx


Vít




Mamoru



In the man time, I have fixed rubygem-notiffany, but there seems to 
be several more:


https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/search?q=ruby_by=state-f38%2Crunning%2Cfailing%2Cname 



rubygem-listen

rubygem-guard

rubygem-guard-livereload

rubygem-memfs


And that actually might be it. I'll try to take look at listen.


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

___
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


OpenPGP_signature
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Mamoru TASAKA]

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/04 0:37:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 15:37 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 22:22:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:07 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update was submitted 
for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the status and our options here?


Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b
i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash



Thx for pointing out the exact commit.




I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need fixing anyway,



No doubt about it, the only question is when :)



however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems generally weigh too 
difficult...

As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained for 13 months,
I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable



In this case, can we postpone landing the F37 update and include fixes for the 
affected packages into the update?

(I wish the notifications were not delayed by one week, but hopefully, the FMN 
is going to be fixed soon).



(and on the other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)



I support that, thx.

Vít



Well, the simplest solution for now is to revert the above change on F-37.



You mean the rspec-mocks commit? That is interesting idea.


Yes, I mean that (i.e. revert e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b on 
Fedora 37
rubygem-rspec-mocks rpm). Koschei should report errors on rawhide (for rspec 
consumer
rpms) anyway.

Mamoru



In the man time, I have fixed rubygem-notiffany, but there seems to be several 
more:

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/search?q=ruby_by=state-f38%2Crunning%2Cfailing%2Cname

rubygem-listen

rubygem-guard

rubygem-guard-livereload

rubygem-memfs


And that actually might be it. I'll try to take look at listen.


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

___
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 03. 11. 22 v 15:37 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 22:22:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:07 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update 
was submitted for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the status 
and our options here?



Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b 


i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash



Thx for pointing out the exact commit.




I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need 
fixing anyway,



No doubt about it, the only question is when :)



however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems generally 
weigh too difficult...


As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained for 
13 months,

I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable



In this case, can we postpone landing the F37 update and include 
fixes for the affected packages into the update?


(I wish the notifications were not delayed by one week, but 
hopefully, the FMN is going to be fixed soon).




(and on the other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)



I support that, thx.

Vít



Well, the simplest solution for now is to revert the above change on 
F-37.



You mean the rspec-mocks commit? That is interesting idea.

In the man time, I have fixed rubygem-notiffany, but there seems to be 
several more:


https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/search?q=ruby_by=state-f38%2Crunning%2Cfailing%2Cname

rubygem-listen

rubygem-guard

rubygem-guard-livereload

rubygem-memfs


And that actually might be it. I'll try to take look at listen.


Vít




OpenPGP_signature
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Mamoru TASAKA]

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 22:22:


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:07 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update was submitted 
for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the status and our options here?


Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b
i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash



Thx for pointing out the exact commit.




I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need fixing anyway,



No doubt about it, the only question is when :)



however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems generally weigh too 
difficult...

As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained for 13 months,
I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable



In this case, can we postpone landing the F37 update and include fixes for the 
affected packages into the update?

(I wish the notifications were not delayed by one week, but hopefully, the FMN 
is going to be fixed soon).



(and on the other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)



I support that, thx.

Vít



Well, the simplest solution for now is to revert the above change on F-37.

Mamoru





Regards,
Mamoru



Dne 03. 11. 22 v 13:14 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Seems the saga continues with RSpec 3.12:

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-notiffany?collection=f38

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-listen?collection=f38


Vít



Dne 07. 02. 22 v 12:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Dear Mamoru,

Could you please check the following two packages which recently started to 
fail?


https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f36

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-websocket-extensions?collection=f36


I suspect that this is related to the RSpec update, but the errors are quite 
strange on the first look:


~~~

  1) WebMock::RequestSignature initialization assigns normalized headers
 Failure/Error: @headers = WebMock::Util::Headers.normalize_headers(headers)
   # received :normalize_headers with 
unexpected arguments
 expected: ({"A"=>"a"})
  got: ({"A"=>"a"})
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:25:in `headers='
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:49:in `assign_options'
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:11:in `initialize'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `new'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `block (3 levels) in '
 # ./lib/webmock/rspec.rb:37:in `block (2 levels) in '

~~~


Thx a lot


Vít


P.S. Sorry for not being more helpful, I have to spent some time with CentOS 
Stream 9 to get Ruby into shape there, especially the problematic SystemTap 
support [1].


[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18257




___
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

___
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


___
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

___
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 

Re: Ruby rawhide FTBFS

[Jun Aruga (he / him)]

> > Not surprisingly, RubyGems fail as well 﫤
> >
> >
> > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygems?collection=f38
>
> Okay, the rpms/rubygems is next after the rpms/ruby.

Here is the PR. Someone, please review.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygems/pull-request/4

-- 
Jun | He - Him | Timezone: UTC+1 or 2, Czech Republic
See  for
the timezone.
___
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:22 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:07 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update 
was submitted for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the status 
and our options here?



Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b 


i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash



Thx for pointing out the exact commit.




I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need 
fixing anyway,



No doubt about it, the only question is when :)



however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems generally 
weigh too difficult...



Just checking the rubygem-notiffany, there was already fix applied:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-notiffany/c/dfda0c228c7ca4f00472f8fdde03cd54eb1917b0?branch=rawhide

Which just confirms this is difficult issue ...


Vít





As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained for 
13 months,

I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable



In this case, can we postpone landing the F37 update and include fixes 
for the affected packages into the update?


(I wish the notifications were not delayed by one week, but hopefully, 
the FMN is going to be fixed soon).




(and on the other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)



I support that, thx.


Vít




Regards,
Mamoru



Dne 03. 11. 22 v 13:14 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Seems the saga continues with RSpec 3.12:

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-notiffany?collection=f38 



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-listen?collection=f38 




Vít



Dne 07. 02. 22 v 12:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Dear Mamoru,

Could you please check the following two packages which recently 
started to fail?



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f36 



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-websocket-extensions?collection=f36 




I suspect that this is related to the RSpec update, but the errors 
are quite strange on the first look:



~~~

  1) WebMock::RequestSignature initialization assigns normalized 
headers
 Failure/Error: @headers = 
WebMock::Util::Headers.normalize_headers(headers)
   # received 
:normalize_headers with unexpected arguments

 expected: ({"A"=>"a"})
  got: ({"A"=>"a"})
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:25:in `headers='
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:49:in `assign_options'
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:11:in `initialize'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `new'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `block (3 
levels) in '
 # ./lib/webmock/rspec.rb:37:in `block (2 levels) in (required)>'


~~~


Thx a lot


Vít


P.S. Sorry for not being more helpful, I have to spent some time 
with CentOS Stream 9 to get Ruby into shape there, especially the 
problematic SystemTap support [1].



[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18257




___
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

___
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


OpenPGP_signature
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 03. 11. 22 v 14:07 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update was 
submitted for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the status and 
our options here?



Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b 


i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash



Thx for pointing out the exact commit.




I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need 
fixing anyway,



No doubt about it, the only question is when :)



however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems generally 
weigh too difficult...


As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained for 13 
months,

I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable



In this case, can we postpone landing the F37 update and include fixes 
for the affected packages into the update?


(I wish the notifications were not delayed by one week, but hopefully, 
the FMN is going to be fixed soon).




(and on the other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)



I support that, thx.


Vít




Regards,
Mamoru



Dne 03. 11. 22 v 13:14 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Seems the saga continues with RSpec 3.12:

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-notiffany?collection=f38 



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-listen?collection=f38


Vít



Dne 07. 02. 22 v 12:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Dear Mamoru,

Could you please check the following two packages which recently 
started to fail?



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f36 



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-websocket-extensions?collection=f36 




I suspect that this is related to the RSpec update, but the errors 
are quite strange on the first look:



~~~

  1) WebMock::RequestSignature initialization assigns normalized 
headers
 Failure/Error: @headers = 
WebMock::Util::Headers.normalize_headers(headers)
   # received 
:normalize_headers with unexpected arguments

 expected: ({"A"=>"a"})
  got: ({"A"=>"a"})
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:25:in `headers='
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:49:in `assign_options'
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:11:in `initialize'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `new'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `block (3 
levels) in '
 # ./lib/webmock/rspec.rb:37:in `block (2 levels) in (required)>'


~~~


Thx a lot


Vít


P.S. Sorry for not being more helpful, I have to spent some time 
with CentOS Stream 9 to get Ruby into shape there, especially the 
problematic SystemTap support [1].



[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18257




___
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

___
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


OpenPGP_signature
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Mamoru TASAKA]

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/11/03 21:19:

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update was submitted 
for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the status and our options here?


Vít


This is:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/e931e818b577172b89fb4583fc336fbcd25df36b
i.e. to ”emphasize" the difference between keyword v.s. hash

I "think" the package seeing errors due to the above change need fixing anyway, 
however
To distinguish "keywords" v.s. "hash" with ruby 3.x seems generally weigh too 
difficult...

As Fedora 37 is not released yet, and is going to be maintained for 13 months,
I think fixing F37 packages seeing the above error is desirable (and on the 
other hand,
I am not going to upgrade F36 rspec series to 3.12.x)

Regards,
Mamoru
 


Dne 03. 11. 22 v 13:14 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Seems the saga continues with RSpec 3.12:

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-notiffany?collection=f38

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-listen?collection=f38


Vít



Dne 07. 02. 22 v 12:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Dear Mamoru,

Could you please check the following two packages which recently started to 
fail?


https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f36

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-websocket-extensions?collection=f36


I suspect that this is related to the RSpec update, but the errors are quite 
strange on the first look:


~~~

  1) WebMock::RequestSignature initialization assigns normalized headers
 Failure/Error: @headers = WebMock::Util::Headers.normalize_headers(headers)
   # received :normalize_headers with 
unexpected arguments
 expected: ({"A"=>"a"})
  got: ({"A"=>"a"})
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:25:in `headers='
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:49:in `assign_options'
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:11:in `initialize'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `new'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `block (3 levels) in '
 # ./lib/webmock/rspec.rb:37:in `block (2 levels) in '

~~~


Thx a lot


Vít


P.S. Sorry for not being more helpful, I have to spent some time with CentOS 
Stream 9 to get Ruby into shape there, especially the problematic SystemTap 
support [1].


[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18257




___
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

___
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

Re: Ruby rawhide FTBFS

[Jun Aruga (he / him)]

> >> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=git
> > The git 2.38.1 is on f37, f36 and f35 too.
> > Maybe it's better to push this PR commit to these fedoras too after
> > merging the rawhide PR.
> >
>
> Right, I have mentioned this in the PR but you are apparently on top of
> it. Great!

OK. I will fix this issue and build on the old Fedoras too.

> BTW if you have a spare cycles, please review the Rawhide changes which
> were committed after the F37 was branched. I guess they could be
> included into F37, but I have not checked (particularly the enabled
> package notes, not sure if the changes landed in F37, but my guess is
> that they have landed there). Thx

It seems that the rawhide specific change below should work on Fedora
37 (and 36) too. I will backport the commit to the f37 too.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/588a4ae9f02928d7bedbcf46a739d36b0a76e632?branch=rawhide

The issue comes from the redhat-rpm-config and it was fixed in
redhat-rpm-config-210-1 fc36, fc37, fc38 (rawhide).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043092#c66

So, I will test by building the rubygem-nio4r package on the built
Ruby just in case. This is a step to verify the issue that you
reported on the Bugzilla ticket.

-- 
Jun | He - Him | Timezone: UTC+1 or 2, Czech Republic
See  for
the timezone.
___
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Vít Ondruch]

I have provided negative karma for F37 for the moment:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7975d0e6a


However, not sure if it is not too late already, since the update was 
submitted for stable. Mamoru, could you please check the status and our 
options here?



Vít



Dne 03. 11. 22 v 13:14 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Seems the saga continues with RSpec 3.12:

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-notiffany?collection=f38 



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-listen?collection=f38


Vít



Dne 07. 02. 22 v 12:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Dear Mamoru,

Could you please check the following two packages which recently 
started to fail?



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f36

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-websocket-extensions?collection=f36 




I suspect that this is related to the RSpec update, but the errors 
are quite strange on the first look:



~~~

  1) WebMock::RequestSignature initialization assigns normalized headers
 Failure/Error: @headers = 
WebMock::Util::Headers.normalize_headers(headers)
   # received :normalize_headers 
with unexpected arguments

 expected: ({"A"=>"a"})
  got: ({"A"=>"a"})
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:25:in `headers='
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:49:in `assign_options'
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:11:in `initialize'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `new'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `block (3 levels) 
in '
 # ./lib/webmock/rspec.rb:37:in `block (2 levels) in (required)>'


~~~


Thx a lot


Vít


P.S. Sorry for not being more helpful, I have to spent some time with 
CentOS Stream 9 to get Ruby into shape there, especially the 
problematic SystemTap support [1].



[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18257




OpenPGP_signature
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

Re: Latest RSpec issues?

[Vít Ondruch]

Seems the saga continues with RSpec 3.12:

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-notiffany?collection=f38

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-listen?collection=f38


Vít



Dne 07. 02. 22 v 12:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Dear Mamoru,

Could you please check the following two packages which recently 
started to fail?



https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f36

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-websocket-extensions?collection=f36 




I suspect that this is related to the RSpec update, but the errors are 
quite strange on the first look:



~~~

  1) WebMock::RequestSignature initialization assigns normalized headers
 Failure/Error: @headers = 
WebMock::Util::Headers.normalize_headers(headers)
   # received :normalize_headers 
with unexpected arguments

 expected: ({"A"=>"a"})
  got: ({"A"=>"a"})
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:25:in `headers='
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:49:in `assign_options'
 # ./lib/webmock/request_signature.rb:11:in `initialize'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `new'
 # ./spec/unit/request_signature_spec.rb:23:in `block (3 levels) 
in '
 # ./lib/webmock/rspec.rb:37:in `block (2 levels) in (required)>'


~~~


Thx a lot


Vít


P.S. Sorry for not being more helpful, I have to spent some time with 
CentOS Stream 9 to get Ruby into shape there, especially the 
problematic SystemTap support [1].



[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18257




OpenPGP_signature
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

Re: Ruby rawhide FTBFS

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 02. 11. 22 v 20:38 Jun Aruga (he / him) napsal(a):

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 6:54 PM Vít Ondruch  wrote:

Good catch.

Here is the PR to the rpms/ruby rawhide.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/135#


Not surprisingly, RubyGems fail as well 﫤


https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygems?collection=f38

Okay, the rpms/rubygems is next after the rpms/ruby.



Thx





And looking at git updates, I'd be not surprised if also older Fedoras
get broken soon:


https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=git

The git 2.38.1 is on f37, f36 and f35 too.
Maybe it's better to push this PR commit to these fedoras too after
merging the rawhide PR.



Right, I have mentioned this in the PR but you are apparently on top of 
it. Great!


BTW if you have a spare cycles, please review the Rawhide changes which 
were committed after the F37 was branched. I guess they could be 
included into F37, but I have not checked (particularly the enabled 
package notes, not sure if the changes landed in F37, but my guess is 
that they have landed there). Thx



Vít



OpenPGP_signature
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