SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2024-06-06

Hi all SPDX conversion status for rubygems in Fedora. Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 447   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   442   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds: 285/442   *

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2024-05-16

Hi all, we have a new report on current SPDX conversion amount in Rubygems of Fedora. Regards, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 447   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   442   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2024-04-26

Hi all, time came for a new SPDX report. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 447   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   442   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds: 284/442   *

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2024-04-04

Hi, some time passed and here is new SPDX conversion status report for Fedora RubyGems. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 447   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   442   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2024-03-21

Hi all, another amount of time passed, I come back with a new report on the SPDX status in Fedora rubygems. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 448   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   443   * Fedora License field and

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2024-02-28

Hi all, I come back with a recent report on Rubygems SPDX status. Regards, Jarek  * Total rubygems in Fedora: 449   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   444   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2024-02-08

Hi, Some time passed yet again, therefore we have a new report on the SPDX in Fedora rubies. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 449   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   444   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2024-01-15

Hi, new year edition of how we are doing with SPDX tags in the rubygems package ecosystem. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 453   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   448   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match

Re: Ruby 3.3

On 1/3/24 11:48, jpro...@redhat.com wrote: On 1/3/24 11:23, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 02. 01. 24 v 21:50 Pavel Valena napsal(a): My build succeeded everywhere. Nevertheless, there were some reports about issues with fibers (e.g.

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-12-14

Hi, last SPDX status of this year, the next one will be generated in the first weeks of 2024. Regards, Jarek Prokop ---   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 455   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   450   * Fedora License field

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-11-23

Hi all, back with new report. Regards, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 455   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   450   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds: 289/450   * license

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-11-02

Hi, another 2 weeks passed so there is updated SPDX status. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 456   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   451   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds:

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-10-20

Hi all, 2 weeks passed and with it comes SPDX status. Regards, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 457   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   452   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds

Re: rubygem-licensee and rubygem-faraday

On 10/16/23 13:08, Vít Ondruch wrote: Additionally, what is the reason for having Faraday 2? It seems octokit requires Faraday, but version 1 should be fine. I am not sure about Licensee itself, but on the first look, it seems they are having some troubles with Faraday 2, but I don't see

Re: rubygem-licensee and rubygem-faraday

not running yet, but it should ideally run. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244212#c1 Issue upstream: https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-ruby/issues/2228 Regards, Jarek Prokop ___ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-10-05

Hi all, SPDX status for 2023-10-05, forgot to send it last thursday. Regards, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 458   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   453   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-09-21

Hi, New report for 2023-09-21. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 460   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   455   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds: 289/455   * license-validate

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-08-24

Hi all, update on the rubygems SPDX status in Fedora Regards, Jarek Prokop ~~~   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 460   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   455   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate

Re: Alternative way to package RDoc and other default gems that come with Ruby

JFTR the changes were made into a PR https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/158 On 8/16/23 19:34, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi and very much thank you for looking into this issue. Dne 10. 08. 23 v 18:24 Jarek Prokop napsal(a): ..snip.. So the pros / cons of this approach currently

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-08-10

Hi, Another 2 weeks had gone by, I am back with another report. Regards, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 460   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   455   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate

Alternative way to package RDoc and other default gems that come with Ruby

whole gem directory and file tree in /usr/share/ruby for RDoc and record my findings. I am open to discussion, should you want to share your thoughts or ideas regarding this topic. Regards, Jarek Prokop [0] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jackorp/rpms/ruby/c/1f660500090ad6d176a98a2e0883d6

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-07-28

Hi all, I return with a recent report. Thanks, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 462   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   456   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds: 290/456

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-07-13

Hi all, It is July, and we have the first report of the month here. Thanks, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 461   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   456   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-06-29

Hi all, 2 weeks passed, so here is recent SPDX report. Regards, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 469   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   464   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-06-15

Hi all, Another SPDX status email, this time enhanced by filtering out orphaned packages suggested by Troy Dawson, thanks! This count is also reflected in the count in "Action required" field. Regards, Jarek Prokop   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 469   * Excluded gems:   rubygem

Re: SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-06-05

On 6/7/23 16:55, Troy Dawson wrote: Hi Jarek, I see that there are 9 packages listed that are orphaned. Can we get those removed from the list. Those should be gone next time we do this. It is a "living" list. This is not the first time this happened, but before I wasn't collecting who is

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-06-05

Hi all, another Thursday passed, so I am back with fresh report of current SPDX status of Rubygems. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 471   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   466   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm

Fedora 37 Ruby 3.1.4 and URI.parse FTBFS gems

Hi all, JFYI, latest Fedora 37 Ruby rebase broke a few Ruby package builds due to change in the URI gem. recently I did a rebase for Ruby 3.1.4 to address 2 CVEs among other things. For one of those CVEs (ReDoS vulnerability in URI [0]), upstream merged URI gem v0.12.0[1] and later to

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-05-18

Hi all, I am back with a bit of a different format for authors, now you have 2 lists, firstly all packages containing the old license format, then the second lists lists authors/contributors to the packages. This was done because the column formatting broke the 100KB barrier with the last

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-05-05

Hi all, report hot & fresh off of the heap. I have included the suggestion from last report to add commit-able contributors as another column. The owner of the package gets to be in the front, rest, such as groups, other admins/members follow, if any. A positive note, "Action required"

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-04-20

Hi all, I had missed an update 2 weeks ago due to Easter holiday in Czechia but I return with a fresh report. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 471   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   466   * Fedora License field and

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-03-28

Hi all, I come back with another report and a reminder. The SPDX effort in Fedora has shifted into Phase 2, read what that means and more on the System Wide Proposal page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2 Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 475   *

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-03-10

Hi all, Another 2 weeks are gone and I return with a report on the current SPDX status. Regards, Jarek   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 477   * Excluded gems:   rubygem-krb5-auth rubygem-rgen rubygem-net-irc   * Total rubygems checked:   472   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match

Check your rubygem package for valid SPDX

Hi all, today's email is going to be a bit longer. We have reached a branching point in Fedora, with that comes change proposal for Fedora 39: "SPDX License Phase 2" [0] This phase is about having the license field in specs all correctly migrated to SPDX, therefore I am also going to extend

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-02-09

Hi all, 2 weeks have passed, I return with current statistics regarding SPDX for rubygems. I was able to get a gem built out of rubygem-morph-cli and rubygem-asciidoctor tar archives that are in the Fedora lookaside cache. The remaining 3 gems require gymnastics with Rake or additional

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-01-26

Hi all, 2 weeks have passed, I return with current statistics regarding SPDX for rubygems.   * Total rubygems in Fedora: 475     * Decreased by 10 since last run   * Total rubygems checked:   470   * Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate succeeds: 284/470   *

Re: SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-01-12

Uff, these two ^^ should have been retired for ages. Just added them into this ticket: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11156 But what is the source for this list? As with previous emails, the source is rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz from http://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz

SPDX Status for Rubygems in Fedora as of 2023-01-12

rubygem-xmlparser,   GPLv2+ and ( Ruby or GPLv2+ or MIT ) and ( GPLv2+ or Artistic ) rubygem-xmlrpc,  Ruby or BSD rubygem-yard,    MIT and (BSD or Ruby) rubygem-zoom,    LGPLv2+ ~~~ Regards, Jarek Prokop

Re: WASM from Ruby - Lightning Chess Web App

Hi, I don't have much experience with WASM compilation on Fedora. There are some examples online running Ruby compiled to WASM. The most prominent example is TryRuby [0], see source [1]. It seems like they are pulling an NPM package [2] of already compiled Ruby wasm. I see some usage of

Re: Rubygem packages SPDX status as of 2022-12-05

   BSD rubygem-websocket-driver,    ASL 2.0 rubygem-xmlparser,   GPLv2+ and ( Ruby or GPLv2+ or MIT ) and ( GPLv2+ or Artistic ) rubygem-xmlrpc,  Ruby or BSD rubygem-yard,    MIT and (BSD or Ruby) rubygem-zoom,    LGPLv2+ ~~~ Thanks, Ja

Re: Rubygem packages SPDX status as of 24.11

  * license-validate says they are OK SPDX when conjunctions were converted: 334/485 There were 3 rubygem packages dropped in Fedora, otherwise the stats are the same. Regards, Jarek On 11/22/22 14:06, Jarek Prokop wrote: Hi all, I have fixed up the script a bit and sprinkled some more

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

On 11/24/22 14:20, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 24. 11. 22 v 13:12 Jarek Prokop napsal(a): nit regarding the spec license, "GPL-2.0" is not valid SPDX (according to license-validate at least), however, there is "GPL-2.0-only" or "GPL-2.0-or-later". I think that

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

Hi, looks great :), I'll comment more inline. nit regarding the spec license, "GPL-2.0" is not valid SPDX (according to license-validate at least), however, there is "GPL-2.0-only" or "GPL-2.0-or-later". I am maybe coming too soon with this comment, but since we are also on the SPDX topic in

Re: Rubygem packages SPDX status

ons.csv | grep -E "(true|false);0" | wc -l 337 ~~~ https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/spdx_rubygems.git/tree/rubygems_try_convert_conjunctions.csv?id=cdbdc41a5ae532df73c76277a939e456214bb0f9 I will follow up with RPM specs from this week later. Regards, Jarek On 11/2

Rubygem packages SPDX status

Hi, I have been working on the validation of Rubygem licenses with the SPDX format. all work done so far lives in my fedorapeople space: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/spdx_rubygems.git/tree/ It is WIP, including the scripts. (I got a bit sidetracked with validating MIT

Re: Ruby 3.2

Hi, On 10/27/22 15:14, Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 3:39 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 21. 10. 22 v 13:56 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/10/17 23:24: Hi again, Here is yet another version from Friday:

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

Hi, Sub-clasing is interesting idea. But that would mean we needed to provide our own generator. I am working on a kind of a prototype on this. Sources with specfile are available here: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/fedora_darkfish.git/ I also created copr repo that

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

Hi, I took a different approach using Vít's script as a base. the -T could be specified in code, that is subject for more refinement in the next iteration. Also, it seems the fonts are symlinked, a `.reject` on the right place might help with that. ~~~ [vagrant@fedora test]$ cat

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

The other subthread with Jarek reminded me that one of the options could be to extract/fork the whole Darkfish generator instead of monkey patching. But Darkfish is pretty complex. We would probably not avoided any issues. Maybe it would be possible to just provide the subclass of

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

Hi, On 7/20/22 12:28, Vít Ondruch wrote: Just a few notes from the limited time I spend trying to understand the approach. 1) The template can't be subpackage of the rubygem-rdoc. It needs to live in completely separate project to enable us to decouple RDoc updates from the template

Re: Embedded fonts in HTML documentation

requests for the rubygem packages in Pagure. Regards, Jarek Prokop ___ 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

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

Copying the static files to proper directories and then removing them would be better in general, s/removing/symlinking/ ___ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

Hi all, I did some initial work in unbundling the static files and adjusting the darkfish template that we can then copy out and use for generating Fedora's HTML documentation. For this I used rubygem-rdoc and rdoc v6.4.0 for protyping. You can check the spec at:

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

On 6/28/22 09:54, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 27. 06. 22 v 19:51 Jarek Prokop napsal(a): Hi, since it came up in the package review I took a closer look on the state and possibilities. On 6/27/22 17:47, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 27. 06. 22 v 13:21 Benson Muite napsal(a): Hi Pavel, Thanks

Re: Packaging Ruby gem documentation

Hi, since it came up in the package review I took a closer look on the state and possibilities. On 6/27/22 17:47, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 27. 06. 22 v 13:21 Benson Muite napsal(a): Hi Pavel, Thanks. Is it also worth encouraging packaging of Ri documentation? These are very comandline

Re: Status update: updating rubygem-cucumber

Hi all, I've merged the side-tag into rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4ef1a7470 Thanks for help with this update. Regards, Jarek ___ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: Status update: updating rubygem-cucumber

On 1/14/22 12:40, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Hello, all: Jarek Prokop wrote on 2022/01/13 2:17: Hi, On 1/12/22 12:34, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi Jarek, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-aruba/pull-request/2 Considering the Aruba ticket ^^, I am not sure if every party understands that you

Re: Status update: updating rubygem-cucumber

Hi, On 1/12/22 12:34, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi Jarek, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-aruba/pull-request/2 Considering the Aruba ticket ^^, I am not sure if every party understands that you are testing the changes in the side-tag (am I correct, right?), you are unspecifically

Status update: updating rubygem-cucumber

Hi all, Pavel and I have been working bringing the new rubygem-cucumber 7.1.0 into Fedora. We have working updates available in a copr repo [0] that you can try out (as to "how", see the proposal [1]). There are some new dependencies (and renames) that need a review done in order to get