Re: Ruby 2.0

Hi, Another update. This time I successfully build Ruby 2.0-r35922. Please see the ruby-2.0 branch if you like to experiment. Vit Dne 18.4.2012 20:01, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hello again, I just update the ruby-2.0 branch in Ruby's dist-git repo. ATM, it successfully builds tru

Ruby-SIG meeting at FUDCon Paris 2012?

Hi Rubyists, Since me and bkabrda are coming to FUDCon Paris, it would be nice opportunity to meet you, other Rubyists, and discuss some topics and future directions of Ruby in Fedora. Please let us know who would be interested to come and share your topics, which should be discussed. I can t

BASH completion for Ruby

Hi guys, Anybody have any experience with some scripts for bash completion? Have you tried any? Should we integrate any? Just a quick googling gave me two results: https://github.com/mernen/completion-ruby https://github.com/pdkl95/rubygems-completion And there are probably others. I did not

Re: ABRT for Ruby

Hi, Updated ABRT gem version 0.0.2 is available at RubyGems.org if you like to test it. I'd love to hear some feedback. There were done following changes: * Improved code base * Better handling of some edge cases, such as call to Kernel#exit or Ctrl+C event * Test suite added * Improved doc

Re: ABRT for Ruby

Hi Motohiro, Thank you for your feedback. Dne 9.7.2012 22:46, KOSAKI Motohiro napsal(a): On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi, Updated ABRT gem version 0.0.2 is available at RubyGems.org if you like to test it. I'd love to hear some feedback. There were done foll

Re: ABRT for Ruby

Dne 10.7.2012 16:12, John5342 napsal(a): On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: You are right, you can change the $PROGRAM_NAME. I'll make several points here * Is there some more reliable way how to detect the script name? * What is the use case and how widely is this pra

Re: ABRT for Ruby

Dne 10.7.2012 17:06, John5342 napsal(a): On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 10.7.2012 16:12, John5342 napsal(a): If the Ruby documentation is to be believed you could use Kernel#caller to get a stack trace which apparently has a set format including the file name. It is

Re: ABRT for Ruby

Dne 10.7.2012 17:57, John5342 napsal(a): On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 10.7.2012 17:06, John5342 napsal(a): Bonus points though if the report could include a complete list of loaded gems/packages (to help in ruling out monkey patching issues and the like) and the

Re: ABRT for Ruby

Dne 9.7.2012 22:46, KOSAKI Motohiro napsal(a): On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi, Updated ABRT gem version 0.0.2 is available at RubyGems.org if you like to test it. I'd love to hear some feedback. There were done following changes: * Improved code base * Better han

Re: ABRT for Ruby

Dne 13.7.2012 16:12, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 9.7.2012 22:46, KOSAKI Motohiro napsal(a): On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi, Updated ABRT gem version 0.0.2 is available at RubyGems.org if you like to test it. I'd love to hear some feedback. There were done foll

Re: Greetings

Dne 16.7.2012 04:36, Jayson Rowe napsal(a): Hello All, I'm somewhat new (back) to Fedora, and I'm looking into various SIGs get get involved with. I'm curious about the Ruby SIG, and Ruby in general. Hello and welcome! I've always managed Ruby with RVM. What are the advantages/disadvantages

Re: ABRT for Ruby

anged rubygem-abrt.spec because the configuration file must be installed to /etc/libreport/events.d/). The patches are attached. Regards Jakub On Monday 09 of July 2012 15:47:51 Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi, Updated ABRT gem version 0.0.2 is available at RubyGems.org if you like to test it. I'd love

Re: Rails 3.2 in Fedora 18

Dne 18.7.2012 07:28, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): - Original Message - On 07/10/2012 06:43 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: One minor issue: rubygem-scruffy claims that it needs bundler < 3, but Rails 3.2 need bundler > 3. So it will either have to be patched (at least the gemspec) to work with

Re: Redmine in Fedora?

Dne 19.7.2012 09:51, Emanuel Rietveld napsal(a): 1. I've been following the discussion about bundler and system libraries with interest. On my Fedora 17 and 18 systems, I have applied a small patch to get bundler to call spec.activate on the gem instead of using its own method of activating gem

Rails updated to 3.2.7 in Rawhide

Dne 27.7.2012 10:39, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): Hi all! The Ruby on Rails stack has been updated to 3.2.6 version in Rawhide, as it was submitted in the Rails 3.2 Feature [1]. I'd like to ask all owners of depending packages to start rebuilding (or updating, if necessary). The depending package

Re: Gitorious plan

Dne 3.8.2012 19:43, Ken Dreyer napsal(a): Hi Ruby SIG, I'm interested in getting Gitorious into Fedora, and I've outlined the steps necessary on the wiki [1]. I figured I would throw this out there for feedback. I'm wondering if anyone see any other things to consider along with what I've writte

Re: Gitorious plan

Dne 9.8.2012 19:07, Ken Dreyer napsal(a): I have contributed a couple patches to upstream already, and I understand that this is going to have to involve some developer legwork. I figured I would try it as an experiment to see what is possible. That is the word of man ;) Good to hear that. I

Re: F16 and ri output causing errors...

Dne 13.8.2012 23:33, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): I saw this problem before, but don't remember the solution in packaging. When I build my gem (qpid_messaging) under F16, I'm getting complaints [1] about the ri documentation filenames not matching between platforms. Since the filenames are never g

Re: Cached .gem file - include it or not

Dne 16.8.2012 14:29, Miroslav Suchy napsal(a): Hi, I would like to start discussion, whether packaged rubygems should include cached gem file. I'm seeing shift from "should exclude cached .gem file" to "must exclude cached .gem file". I tried to search archive of this mailing list for discussion

Re: JRuby 1.7 and Fedora

Dne 12.9.2012 03:02, Charles Oliver Nutter napsal(a): - Figure out the packaging changes around it: -- Naming Gems that are only for JRuby Any gem that's -java platform will only work on JRuby. There may be non -java platform gems that use JRuby-specific features (like Java integration) too, how

Re: JRuby 1.7 and Fedora

Dne 12.9.2012 09:54, Charles Oliver Nutter napsal(a): On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: I think, that for the platform specific bits, we should use subpackages and somehow follow the RubyGems conventions, i.e. use -java for JRuby packages. This is clear. Unfortunately, I am

Re: Ruby-SIG meeting at FUDCon Paris 2012?

Hi, just a reminder, since FUDCon Paris is approaching. Any topic for discussion? Any Rubyist who will join us? Vit Dne 29.6.2012 10:32, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi Rubyists, Since me and bkabrda are coming to FUDCon Paris, it would be nice opportunity to meet you, other Rubyists, and

Re: JRuby 1.7.0 progress

Hi Slavek! Great effort, although I did not have a chance to test your packages yet, since I am busy with getting Rubinius in shape ;) My general interest are the naming conventions. It seems that you are going to use * "j" prefix, such as jgem or %{jgem_extdir} * -java suffix, for jruby sub

Re: JRuby 1.7.0 progress

Dne 9.10.2012 08:19, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): And one more comment about the jgem. I am asking myself if that is good idea to provide such jruby specific executables (although jgem might be good candidate for exception), since it would imply that every gem has to have its executable for diffe

Re: rspec 2.11.x hits rawhide

Thank you Mamoru. Upgrade to 2.11 could make several packages FTBFS, so I would stay with 2.8 for F18. Vit Dne 11.10.2012 17:21, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a): Hello, ruby-sig folks: I have just updated rspec rpms to 2.11.x on rawhide (F19) rubygem-rspec-mocks-2.11.3-1.fc19 rubygem-rspec-core-2.

gem-nice-install

Hi, Today, I have released gem-nice-install RubyGems plugin, which helps you to install binary gems on your Fedora/RHEL. Any feedback welcome, as well as opinion, if we should integrate this plugin on Fedora by default. Vit ___ ruby-sig mailing

Re: gem-nice-install

Dne 16.10.2012 15:00, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, Today, I have released gem-nice-install RubyGems plugin, which helps you to install binary gems on your Fedora/RHEL. Any feedback welcome, as well as opinion, if we should integrate this plugin on Fedora by default. Vit Just forgot to

Re: BASH completion for Ruby

://github.com/jweslley/rails_completion (rails) Guillermo On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi guys, Anybody have any experience with some scripts for bash completion? Have you tried any? Should we integrate any? Just a quick googling gave me two results: https://github.com/mernen

Re: gem-nice-install

Hi, New version 0.2.0 was released today. The biggest change is use of PackageKit for installation of dependencies by default and I fixed some minor issues along the line. So don't be afraid and give it a try ;) Vit Dne 16.10.2012 15:00, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, Today, I

Re: gem-nice-install

Dne 26.10.2012 15:27, Michal Fojtik napsal(a): On 10/26/2012 02:56 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi, New version 0.2.0 was released today. The biggest change is use of PackageKit for installation of dependencies by default and I fixed some minor issues along the line. So don't be afraid and give

Re: undeprecating rubygem-{bunny,moneta,ohai}

Dne 1.11.2012 21:51, Julian C. Dunn napsal(a): Hi, Mo Morsi pointed me over here from -devel. I'm working on packaging Opscode Chef for Fedora and EPEL 6 (EPEL 5 is too old to do this sanely) The first step for me is to un-deprecate the above packages. I have specfiles ready to go, except I h

Re: updating gems

Hi Mo, Dne 8.11.2012 04:12, Mo Morsi napsal(a): - treetop: 1.4.11 -> 1.4.12 (BZ #871769) Update of treetop doesn't make much sense IMO, since it fixes just few file permissions, while it not fixing all of them. They'll be fixed in next release. But the update will not hurt anything,

Re: gem-nice-install

/Centos/SL). Gomix On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi, Today, I have released gem-nice-install RubyGems plugin, which helps you to install binary gems on your Fedora/RHEL. Any feedback welcome, as well as opinion, if

Re: RubyGems changes to accomodate multiple ruby implementations

Dne 20.11.2012 11:31, Charles Oliver Nutter napsal(a): On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: There is a small regression hidden in this: The gems installed with "sudo gem install" currently place their extensions under /usr/local/lib64/gems/exts, which would also change to

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 29.11.2012 09:43, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): Hi all, as F19 is slowly approaching, I thought it'd be great to finalize the stuff about JRuby/Ruby integration with Fedora. Here are the changes and additions around JRuby, that I suggest: * Global changes - As already mentioned in [1], change

Re: Logos and Mission Statement for the Ruby-SIG

Dne 3.12.2012 08:57, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): BTW, aren't there any copyright issues with the Ruby logo? Is anyone free to take it and use it this way? (just wondering) Not just Ruby [1], but Fedora's logo as well [2] Vít [1] http://rubyidentity.org/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Lo

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 4.12.2012 15:54, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): I call the stub "multiruby" (actually Vit's idea :) ) Well, if you have better idea how to name it, please speak out now :) Considering that this method is similar to Alternatives [1] and Environment modules [2], may be we should find some bette

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 4.12.2012 15:54, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): I have just pushed all of this stuff into my testing repo [1] (the /usr/bin/ruby stub, modified MRI Ruby, etc.), so you can test that now. For me, it seems to work. I call the stub "multiruby" (actually Vit's idea :) ) and its upstream is at [2] (

Re: Ruby 2.0

Hi everybody, I have pushed into the ruby-2.0 branch of Fedora's Ruby repository [1] updated ,spec file for Ruby 2.0. Currently it targets rev38184 which is slightly newer than rev 38126, the officially released ruby-2.0.0-preview2 [2] (official release announcement [3]). Nevertheless, if yo

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 12.12.2012 18:36, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 11/29/2012 09:43 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Two connected problems: 1) RPM generates auto provides from shebangs, e.g. #!/usr/bin/ruby will automatically require ruby package; 2) How to run programs with #!/usr/bin/ruby shebangs under JRuby?

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 13.12.2012 10:08, Marek Jelen napsal(a): BTW, is it not the default behavior? There should be no jruby executable in the official distro. -- mj I am not sure I understand to your point. Vít ___ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraprojec

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 13.12.2012 10:02, Michal Fojtik napsal(a): On 12/13, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 12.12.2012 18:36, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 11/29/2012 09:43 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Two connected problems: 1) RPM generates auto provides from shebangs, e.g. #!/usr/bin/ruby will automatically require

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 13.12.2012 11:50, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 13.12.2012 10:02, Michal Fojtik napsal(a): On 12/13, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 12.12.2012 18:36, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 11/29/2012 09:43 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Two connected problems: 1) RPM generates auto provides from shebangs, e.g

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 13.12.2012 13:15, Michal Fojtik napsal(a): On 12/13, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13.12.2012 10:02, Michal Fojtik napsal(a): On 12/13, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 12.12.2012 18:36, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 11/29/2012 09:43 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Two connected problems: 1) RPM generates

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 13.12.2012 15:56, Michal Fojtik napsal(a): On 12/04, Vít Ondruch wrote: I should also point out that you can try to use different rubies such as: $ ruby _mri_ -v $ ruby _jruby_ -v How about: $ RUBY_PLATFORM=mri ruby -v $ RUBY_PLATFORM=jruby ruby -v I would consider it as alternative

purpose of ruby(abi), python(abi), etc

Hi, Can somebody enlighten me, what is the purpose of ruby(abi) (replace by python(abi) if you wish) virtual provide? Especially, why Ruby packaging guidelines mandate "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.9.1", i.e. versioned require? And why in Python packages, python(abi) is automatically generated? I

Ruby 2.0 in F19

Hi everybody, According to Ruby 2.0 release schedule: - code freeze: 23 Dec. - 2.0.0-rc1 release: 1W Jan. (expected) - 2.0.0-rc2 release: 1W Feb. (expected) - 2.0.0-p0 release: 24 Feb. the official release date is quickly approaching. Therefore, I would like to update you about current

Re: Rubygem RPMs and "yum update"

Hi Philip, Dne 1.1.2013 17:38, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): People, I have just upgraded to Fedora 18 x86_64 and installed all the Ruby/Rails RPMs but I notice when I create a test rails app and then add something to Gemfile and do "bundle install", the system starts pulling in all the native G

Re: Rubygem RPMs and "yum update"

Dne 2.1.2013 12:02, Michal Fojtik napsal(a): Don't forget about the poor developers with other OS than Fedora :-) The original premise was "stay with RPM packaged gems". So non-RPM platforms were already excluded. I cannot tell the reasons why though ;) Vít _

Re: Rubygem RPMs and "yum update"

Dne 2.1.2013 11:29, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): Vít, On 2013-01-02 19:45, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi Philip, Dne 1.1.2013 17:38, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): People, I have just upgraded to Fedora 18 x86_64 and installed all the Ruby/Rails RPMs but I notice when I create a test rails app and then

Heads up: Rails 3.2.10 in Rawhide

Hello everybody, The Rails 3.2.10 will be soon in Rawhide. The build is already in its second half, but it takes ages. Please let me know if you encounter any issues. Vít ___ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedor

Re: JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC

Dne 8.1.2013 11:46, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 12/13/2012 08:31 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Yes, we have, but you need to have root privileges to use them. That is not cool. Why is not cool? If everything with #!ruby should be executed by jruby instead of cRuby, then I would expect that I need

Re: The recent rails vulnerability

Dne 10.1.2013 16:14, Tejas Dinkar napsal(a): Just in case you guys hadn't heard about it: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rubyonrails-security/61bkgvnSGTQ This is considered an urgent f

Re: The recent rails vulnerability

Dne 10.1.2013 16:29, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 10.1.2013 16:14, Tejas Dinkar napsal(a): Just in case you guys hadn't heard about it: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rubyonrails-security/61bkgvnSGTQ <https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#%21topic/rubyonrails-

Ruby 2.0 and JRuby features for F19 + packaging guidelines change

Hi rubyists, Today, we proposed new features for F19: Ruby 2.0.0: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_2.0.0 JRuby 1.7: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/JRuby_1.7 These will be accompanied by small changes to packaging guidelines [1] if approved by FPC [2]. Note, that we are s

Re: Ruby 2.0 and JRuby features for F19 + packaging guidelines change

Dne 23.1.2013 15:05, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): Hello: Vít Ondruch wrote, at 01/16/2013 09:38 PM +9:00: Hi rubyists, Today, we proposed new features for F19: Ruby 2.0.0: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_2.0.0 JRuby 1.7: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/JRuby_1.7 These will

Rails 3.0.x are not supported by upstream anymore

Hi, Just FYI, you probably have not noticed, but Rails 3.0.x are not supported anymore by upstream: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rubyonrails-security/G4TTUDDYbNA Vít ___ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: ruby-openid package

Dne 6.2.2013 17:40, Ken Dreyer napsal(a): Hi folks, I was looking at the ruby-openid package, since it's a dependency for Gitorious: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ruby-openid Should this package be adjusted to use the RubyGem packaging standards? ie. rename to rubygem-ruby-op

Re: Rubgem RPM problem?

Dne 13.2.2013 12:10, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): People, I try to run a Ruby script that requires a custom library to be loaded - when I do it with 1.8.7 on Fedora 16 with the conventional gems, it works fine - however on Fedora 18 with Gems as RPMs and Ruby 1.9.3 I get this error: /usr/share

Re: Rubgem RPM problem?

Dne 13.2.2013 13:56, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): Vít, On 2013-02-13 23:34, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13.2.2013 12:10, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): People, I try to run a Ruby script that requires a custom library to be loaded - when I do it with 1.8.7 on Fedora 16 with the conventional gems, it

Re: running tests against MySQL

Dne 15.2.2013 17:44, Ken Dreyer napsal(a): I'm working on packaging rubygem-riddle and rubygem-thinking-sphinx. Both gems are designed run the rspec test suites against a live MySQL server. Has anyone seen this before? Is it ok to try to do this in mock / koji? I am not MySQL expert, but I am

Mass rebuild script and %gem_install macro

Hi, I have pushed repository [1] with script I am going to use to migrate Ruby packages in Fedora. It is pretty rough at now, but will see what can we do with it. The most important is the f19.rb script [1], which is responsible for the conversion of your .spec file to F19 compliant one. In s

Fwd: Re: #5463: Koji tag for Ruby 2.0.0 / JRuby 1.7

Hi everybody, We obtained side tag for Ruby 2.0.0 rebuild. So these are steps which will follow: 1) Build rubypick 2) Merge my ruby-2.0 branch into master, update to the latest revision available in ruby_2_0_0 branch. I would like to ask you for a review of the spec. There are not all patche

Re: Fwd: Re: #5463: Koji tag for Ruby 2.0.0 / JRuby 1.7

Dne 20.2.2013 23:08, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): Vít Ondruch wrote, at 02/21/2013 01:03 AM +9:00: Hi everybody, We obtained side tag for Ruby 2.0.0 rebuild. So these are steps which will follow: 1) Build rubypick 2) Merge my ruby-2.0 branch into master, update to the latest revision available

Re: #5463: Koji tag for Ruby 2.0.0 / JRuby 1.7

Dne 21.2.2013 11:16, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): - Original Message - On 02/21, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Original Message - Vít Ondruch wrote, at 02/21/2013 01:03 AM +9:00: Hi everybody, We obtained side tag for Ruby 2.0.0 rebuild. So these are steps which will follow: 1

Re: Fwd: Re: #5463: Koji tag for Ruby 2.0.0 / JRuby 1.7

You can watch progress here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0&tagID=232&order=-build_id&latest=1 Vít ___ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Ruby 2.0.0 rebuild status

Hi, As you might noticed [1], I already build some packages. However, I cannot continue, since between Ruby 2.0.0 rev39237 and rev39387 I build in Koji was introduced regression, i.e. shebangs in rubygems's stubs are wrongly expanded to /bin/ruby instead of /usr/bin/ruby, which causes issues

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 rebuild status

Dne 22.2.2013 20:53, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, As you might noticed [1], I already build some packages. However, I cannot continue, since between Ruby 2.0.0 rev39237 and rev39387 I build in Koji was introduced regression, i.e. shebangs in rubygems's stubs are wrongly expanded to /bin

Fedora in Ruby's supported platform list

Hi everybody, I just want to give you head ups, that Fedora is now mentioned on supported platform list [1]. Lets continue in the hard work and lets try to move Fedora into Tier 2 or Tier 1 ;) Thank you. Vít [1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-trunk/wiki/20SupportedPlatforms _

Re: Review swaps

Dne 25.2.2013 15:35, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): I've got two Ruby gems up for package review, and would like to do a swap with someone (or two someones) to get them through: Review Request: rubygem-qpid_proton - Ruby language bindings for the Qpid Proton messaging framework https://bugzilla.r

Re: Review swaps

Dne 25.2.2013 19:34, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 03:39:39PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 25.2.2013 15:35, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): I've got two Ruby gems up for package review, and would like to do a swap with someone (or two someones) to get them through: R

Re: Policy re Gems that don't have RPMs yet?

Dne 25.2.2013 22:01, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): People, A while ago I posted a note on the Devise forum asking if anyone was going to build an RPM for Fedora but didn't get any responses at all - no-one even viewed the post! What happens with Gems in this category? Am I supposed to do anythi

Re: Review swaps

Dne 26.2.2013 14:00, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:38:38AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Yes, you need to use f19-ruby tag for build. However, the dependencies there might not be satisfied. So you can help with rebuild first ;) At least with your gems. That would

Re: package missing dependencies

Dne 11.3.2013 16:12, alejandro Perez napsal(a): Hello list, I wanted to upgrade on of my package and read the packaging guidelines for f19 which take out ruby(abi) requirements in favor for ruby(release) but I'm getting this message rubygem-sequel has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree

Ruby 2.0 in F19/Rawhide

Hi everybody, Ruby 2.0 just landed in F19/Rawhide [1]. Since the rebuild was not as fast as one would wish, there will be probably plenty of broken dependencies. I kindly ask you for patience or better for help with fixing any remaining issues. Just rebuild is unfortunately not enough. Pleas

Re: Tilt 1.3.5 upgrade

Dne 13.3.2013 05:51, Dan Allen napsal(a): Vít, I noticed that the Tilt package has been upgraded to 1.3.5 in rawhide. Would it be possible to get this update pushed to F18 (and perhaps F17 too)? Tilt 1.3.5 has integration with the recently packaged Asciidoctor gem and is a central piece for t

Re: Proper F18 & F19 spec notation

Dne 13.3.2013 15:13, Troy Dawson napsal(a): Hi All, With the new F19 guidelines now in effect, I'm seeing I have lots of broken dependencies that want ruby(abi) and I'm in the middle of fixing them up. If you need some priority help with some dependencies, please let me know. You can find me (

Re: Proper F18 & F19 spec notation

Dne 13.3.2013 15:32, Troy Dawson napsal(a): On 03/13/2013 09:25 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13.3.2013 15:13, Troy Dawson napsal(a): Hi All, With the new F19 guidelines now in effect, I'm seeing I have lots of broken dependencies that want ruby(abi) and I'm in the middle of fixing th

Re: Tilt 1.3.5 upgrade

Dne 13.3.2013 16:19, Dan Allen napsal(a): On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 13.3.2013 05:51, Dan Allen napsal(a): Vít, I noticed that the Tilt package has been upgraded to 1.3.5 in rawhide. Would it be po

Re: Puppet and Ruby 2.0

Dne 14.3.2013 02:49, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): What is the date to get a newer Puppet into F19? Our master branch support Ruby 2.0.0 but we haven't cut a release from master for a while. (It would likely be Puppet 3.2.0). Puppet Labs probably won't move their entire release cycle for this, but

Re: Puppet and Ruby 2.0

Dne 14.3.2013 16:49, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 14.3.2013 02:49, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): What is the date to get a newer Puppet into F19? Our master branch support Ruby 2.0.0 but we haven't cut a release from master for a while

Re: Tilt 1.3.5 upgrade

Dne 14.3.2013 18:53, Dan Allen napsal(a): On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 13.3.2013 16:19, Dan Allen napsal(a): On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Vít Ondruch mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 13.3.2013 0

Re: Puppet and Ruby 2.0

Hi Michael, So I committed the changes for Rawhide [1]. Here [2] is the scratch build. And I just comment bellow on a few changes I did: @@ -5,8 +5,8 @@ # Specifically not using systemd on F18 as it's technically a break between # using SystemV on 2.7.x and Systemd on 3.1.0. -%if 0%{?fedora} >=

Re: rubygem-asciidoctor stuck in testing queue

Dne 15.3.2013 21:58, Dan Allen napsal(a): The RPMs for the rubygem-asciidoctor package (F17 and F18) have been approved, I built them on koji and published them to bodhi. However, they are currently stuck there waiting for karma points. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-asciidoct

%gem_install macro

Hi everybody, I have noticed, that although you are updating your packages to be buildable with F19, you are not doing it properly. The %gem_install macro, which is mentioned in guidelines, was not introduced just to annoy you. It should help you. You probably did not noticed, but without the

Re: %gem_install macro

Dne 18.3.2013 14:59, Troy Dawson napsal(a): On 03/18/2013 04:10 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi everybody, I have noticed, that although you are updating your packages to be buildable with F19, you are not doing it properly. The %gem_install macro, which is mentioned in guidelines, was not

Re: %gem_install macro

You can use the same approach we used previously for other macros, e.g. %{?!gem_install: %global %gem_install(d:n:) \ mkdir -p %{-d*}%{!?-d:.%{gem_dir}} \ \ CONFIGURE_ARGS="--with-cflags='%{optflags}' $CONFIGURE_ARGS" \\\ gem install \\\ -V \\\ --local \\\ --install-dir

Re: %gem_install macro

Dne 21.3.2013 21:11, Russell Harrison napsal(a): On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: You can use the same approach we used previously for other macros, e.g. %{?!gem_install: %global %gem_install(d:n:) \

Re: Ruby 2.0 RPM - Rails can't find psych

Dne 27.3.2013 00:28, Peter Deffendol napsal(a): Hi, I rebuilt the ruby-2.0.0.0-6 packages on CentOS 6 (requiring a couple of slight modifications to the spec file) and ran into some trouble: [pete@centos railstest]$ ./script/rails c /usr/share/ruby/yaml.rb:6:in `': It seems your ruby installa

Re: Ruby 2.0 RPM - Rails can't find psych

Dne 27.3.2013 14:35, Peter Deffendol napsal(a): On Mar 27, 2013, at 2:10 AM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: This seems to be Bundler issue IMO. You should add Psych into your Gemfile. Thanks Vit - I had that thought as well. However, I get a slightly differen

Re: Ruby 2.0 RPM - Rails can't find psych

Dne 27.3.2013 16:22, Peter Deffendol napsal(a): On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 27.3.2013 14:35, Peter Deffendol napsal(a): [pete@centos yamltest]$ ./script/rails c /usr/share/ruby/yaml.rb:6:in `': It seems your ruby installat

Re: rspec updated to 2.13.x on rawhide/f19

Dne 28.3.2013 10:14, Mamoru Tasaka napsal(a): Hello, all: I've updated rspec to 2.13.x on rawhide/f19. I expect that nothing special would happen with this version, however please test this. Regards, Mamoru Thank you for the update. Vít ___ ruby-s

Re: package aliases or an alternative package name for a Ruby gem

Dne 28.3.2013 22:11, Dan Allen napsal(a): Is it possible to have an alias to a rubygem rpm or are there exceptions to the rule that it must have the rubygem- prefix. I ask in relation to two packages. The first is rubygem-asciidoctor. This package provides both a Ruby library and a system exe

Re: any hope for logstash?

Hi Carl, Dne 3.4.2013 22:34, Carl Byington napsal(a): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am working on packaging logstash for fedora http://www.logstash.net/ but the build procedure described here https://github.com/logstash/logstash/wiki/ Building-and-running-logstash-from-sour

Re: Bringing GitLab in Fedora

Dne 10.4.2013 19:59, Axilleas Pipinellis napsal(a): Hello everyone! It's been over a month since I last wrote to this list regarding the GitLab project. I managed to make a blog post of the story so far[0], any feedback welcomed :) Cheers! [0] http://axilleas.github.io/en/blog/2013/bringing-gi

Re: any hope for logstash?

Dne 11.4.2013 06:38, Carl Byington napsal(a): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 12:28 +0200, Vit Ondruch wrote: The best would be, if you could prepare basic .spec file, which might even download stuff from internet and we could remove, step-by-step, the bundl

Re: Bringing GitLab in Fedora

There are some of them already undergoing review: awesome_print - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839650 backports - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816991 - though I am not sure if we should continue with this one, since it brings nothing new to Fedora bootstrap-sass -

Re: Bringing GitLab in Fedora

Dne 11.4.2013 13:00, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a): Some of them should not be needed at all: libv8 - This is used by therubyracer as far as I know. The system libv8 is used for therubyracer instead and if there is other need, it should be used there as well. This is unfortunately

Re: Bringing GitLab in Fedora

Dne 11.4.2013 14:00, Axilleas Pipinellis napsal(a): On 04/11/2013 01:52 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: There are some of them already undergoing review: awesome_print - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839650 backports - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816991- though I am not

Re: Bringing GitLab in Fedora

Dne 11.4.2013 20:11, Dan Allen napsal(a): There is a way around this if therubyracer is being pulled in by execjs. You can set an environment variable to use the system js binary, which is in Fedora by default. EXECJS_RUNTIME=SpiderMonkey SpiderMonkey is not recomended by execjs upstream

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >