On 05/20/2016 06:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi everybody,
You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages
in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd
like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these
questions:
1) Would you be
, this is the wrong list to be asking/stating that.
You need to talk about it on the EPEL list.
On this list, everyone is excited to get rails updated. On the EPEL
list, you'll find out who you are going to break.
Troy
On 06/12/2015 09:28 AM, Mo Morsi wrote:
I've done some investigation as to updating
I've done some investigation as to updating rails in EPEL to the latest
release (4.2.1).
As part of this I've been refactoring polisher [1] and have written a
few new utilities to cross reference upstream / downstream dependencies
and output the results in in a tree like manner [2][3] as well
On 05/06/2015 08:22 AM, Josef Stribny wrote:
Hi,
I am the one that reported #225 when I was working on updating fedora-review
in regards to Ruby packaging guidelines. I did some changes back then, but
there is more that could be done.
One think I would like to ask is, if we now have some
Up to this point how frequently does this need to be updated? Is this
mostly when the Fedora ruby guidelines are modified or do upstream Ruby
updates entail changes to fedora-review?
If the former is the case we should be able to synchronize fedora-review
ruby plugin updates to guidelines
On 07/09/2014 04:00 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 8.7.2014 20:00, Achilleas Pipinellis napsal(a):
Hey there, I thought some of you might want to check how the refactoring
of isitfedoraruby goes. Here's a short changelog for the previous month.
- Remove unused code (sorry Mo...)
- Remove
On 06/25/2014 10:15 AM, Joe Rafaniello wrote:
Well, what is in the upstream fermig repository and what I am actually
using during migration periods is not always the same. From my point of
view, it is one shot library, which should be ideally used once a year
(or how often the guidelines are
On 06/25/2014 11:56 AM, Joe Rafaniello wrote:
- Original Message -
On 06/25/2014 10:15 AM, Joe Rafaniello wrote:
Well, what is in the upstream fermig repository and what I am actually
using during migration periods is not always the same. From my point of
view, it is one shot library,
On 06/23/2014 11:20 AM, Joe Rafaniello wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone use gem2rpm to upgrade an existing rpm to new versions of
upstream gems?
I'm contemplating working on a pull request to make gem2rpm aware of an
existing .spec file and only update specific sections such as: version,
On 06/23/2014 02:01 PM, Joe Rafaniello wrote:
- Original Message -
On 06/23/2014 11:20 AM, Joe Rafaniello wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone use gem2rpm to upgrade an existing rpm to new versions of
upstream gems?
I'm contemplating working on a pull request to make gem2rpm aware of an
Hey was just look at the updated guidelines here [1] (if there is a more
recent version, please let me know).
I was a bit thrown off by the following two guidelines:
- Under 'Ruby Compatibility'
Each Ruby package *must* indicate it depends on a Ruby interpreter. Use
ruby(release) virtual
On 03/27/2014 04:49 PM, Mo Morsi wrote:
Greetings, there are a couple of bugs [1] [2] filed against the outdated
version of rubygem-bundler in EPEL.
Looking at the bundler changelog [3], I do not see any noticeable
regressions / deprecations since the version we currently ship via el6
(1.1.4
Greetings, there are a couple of bugs [1] [2] filed against the outdated
version of rubygem-bundler in EPEL.
Looking at the bundler changelog [3], I do not see any noticeable
regressions / deprecations since the version we currently ship via el6
(1.1.4) so this update should be fine w/ the EPEL
On 03/11/2014 04:45 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 [1]. The main
two changes are:
1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
one caveat [2]).
2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.
If you have
On 01/10/2014 09:11 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
* Not sure if there is some neat way how to get rid of the
-I%{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri} from the %check section though :/ May
be -I$(dirs +1)%{gem_extdir_mri} could be better pattern, since it
points into ${_builddir}, i.e. into the directory
Hey all just a heads up that the gem_dependency_checker and other
scripts recently sent out can now be found in the 'Polisher' project
here [1]. Polisher is a library and toolset aimed at providing a
reusable/extensible integration point between upstream Ruby projects and
downstream vendor
Upstream project [1] and review request [2].
If anyone has another gem that they submitted and wants to do a review
swap, just shout out.
random A few of us recently added the ability to only load / activate
system installed gems to bundler_ext [3]. This means an administrator or
developer can
+1. Getting this stuff in rawhide often helps app developers update
their app to the new version.
As far as Aeolus goes, don't concern yourself w/ any of those packages,
most likely will retire them at some point.
-Mo
On 08/06/2013 09:59 AM, Troy Dawson wrote:
Hi Josef,
Although I don't
Attached below are a few scripts which I threw together to help us
package cloudforms and to continue improving the gem - rpm and bundler
- yum conversion process.
The first rhgc.rb [1] extends the Fedora Gemfile checker I previously
sent out to compare a local gemfile against a variety of other
I am not at all familiar with building/packaging java or ruby programs.
I normally work on C++ w/ autoconf.
https://nodeload.github.com/logstash/logstash/tar.gz/v1.1.9
The internal Makefile there runs curl/wget to download more source code,
which seems to terribly violate any reasonable
On 02/26/2013 11:21 AM, Philip Rhoades wrote:
People,
Thanks to the people who responded - see inline comments:
On 2013-02-26 21:14, Nathan Wan wrote:
I'm no expert here but I'd like to add my two cents.
http://isitfedoraruby.com [3] is a project started last summer. It is
intended to
Tons of updates to the http://isitfedoraruby.com webapp!
Much appreciation goes out to Nico, Mark, Animesh, and Kendhia (all
cc'd) who have all added all of the following features recently.
In no particular order:
- Now hosted on Openshift!!!
- Integrated it w/ jenkins so whenever we push to
On 12/03/2012 03:23 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
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]
On 12/03/2012 02:54 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
- Original Message -
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
On 11/29/2012 01:15 PM, Animesh Tripathi wrote:
Hi,
I'm Animesh, a 16 year old high school student from New Delhi, India.
I'm participating in the Google Code-In 2012 contest, and as part of a
task, I created a video documenting the process of installing Ruby on
Rails using the Ruby Stack
On 11/30/2012 11:51 AM, Mark Klein wrote:
Hello,
I'm Mark Klein, a 14 year old high school student from Honolulu, Hawaii.
I'm participating in the Google Code-In contest for 2012 and for my
task, I designed two logos and wrote a mission statement for the
Fedora/Ruby SIG.
Here's the link
On 11/29/2012 08:00 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
- Original Message -
On 11/07/2012 10:12 PM, Mo Morsi wrote:
Before jumping back into isitfedoraruby, I plan on pushing some
long
overdue updates to some of the gems I maintain.
The following packages have been updated in rawhide
On 11/20/2012 04:19 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 /usr/local/lib64/gems/ruby, causing these gems to
need
rspec1 shipped rspec.rb as part of the rubygem-rspec package
rspec2 shipped rspec.rb as part of rubygem-rspec-core, so to assist in
that migration we left rubygem-rspec at 1.x for the time, and converted
packages to depend on rspec-core. When the migration was done, we
updated rubygem-rspec.
On 11/08/2012 02:51 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
I would like to start pushing updates
to rawhide soon (rawhide only). To assist in the update process, I've
whipped up a little script (which you can find here [1]) called the Gem
Rpm Updater, or gru.rb
`git reset HEAD~ --hard`
why?
My
Before jumping back into isitfedoraruby, I plan on pushing some long
overdue updates to some of the gems I maintain.
The following are on my list:
Must update:
- childprocess: 0.2.0 - 0.3.6 (BZ #873320, required for rubygem-aruba
update)
Upstream release monitoring
- minitest:2.10.1 -
Hey all, just pushed a few updates to the webapp and live site including:
- new feature pulling in all a gem / rpm's bugs from bugzilla and
highlighting the review bug on the rpm details page
- new feature pulling in builds from koji and highlighting them on the
rpm details page
- further
On 09/10/2012 11:22 AM, Maros Zatko wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm trying to get rails_best_practices [1] gem into fedora,
so I did some specfiles [2]. (Un)fortunately those needs
to get reviewed and this mailing list seems to be the
best place to obtain such a thing. I'd love to ask you
On 09/20/2012 04:59 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
just a reminder, since FUDCon Paris is approaching. Any topic for
discussion? Any Rubyist who will join us?
Vit
Hey not gonna be in attendance myself, but he's just a bunch of random
ideas:
- packaging hackfest: getting the jruby 1.7 stuff
Nice :)
Do you think it would be a good idea to also include some section with
tutorials, that would show people for example how to setup Rails project
using our packaged Gems etc? I think that Fedora has experienced some great
changes lately, but I think that people are not informed and
On 07/16/2012 04:04 PM, Mo Morsi wrote:
Just a quick update regarding the Fedora/Ruby project Zuhao has been
working on as part of the Google Summer of Code.
As many of you may remember, Zuhao has been working on a rails based
site to highlight the ruby sig's community's effort in packaging
On 07/18/2012 08:40 AM, Emanuel Rietveld wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote:
Replying to list to get wider discussion.
Posted by Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda on 2012-07-13 04:21:44 EDT
to
Also, what ways could I help out the SIG?
You can share your opinions on discussed topics or help to maintain
your favorite Ruby packages. For that, you should become Fedora
packager [1].
Yes, help is needed with documenting usage and the availability of Ruby
on Fedora (the Fedora wiki
Sorry for the belated response. It seems like there are a few API
changes but nothing that we can't handle so no objections to updating
from here.
-Mo
On 06/26/2012 01:39 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hey Mo,
just googling around randomly, it seems that there are no problems with
upgrade to
It is possible to get funding for travel arrangements, you can read more
about the process here
https://fedorahosted.org/fudcon-planning/wiki/FundingRequest
I've never submitted a request, so can't say how likely it will be granted.
Hope ya'll are able to get something together for Paris, make
Have there been rails 3.2 rpms built? And what do Rails 3.0 - 3.2
upgrade stories look like upstream? Might be worth considering holding
this off for another Fedora release or two to let things shore up /
settle down.
-Mo
On 06/21/2012 10:59 AM, Guillermo Gómez wrote:
Please do :)
On 05/14/2012 07:34 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
- Original Message -
Dne 11.5.2012 15:30, Emanuel Rietveld napsal(a):
Hi,
I'm getting ready to start working on Rails 3.2.3 for F18 (maybe)
and
EPEL 6 (for sure).
Just wondering if anybody has already tried to package it and found
Hey all I wanted to introduce and congratulate Zuhao who'se project
proposal [1] to expand the tooling around Fedora / Ruby integration as
well as the community promotional effort was accepted as part of the
Google Summer of Code!
I'm starting to working with Zuhao to implement the strategies he
This sounds like a good feature to add to the site. It could simply be
accomplished by listing the gems available for every Fedora version +
rawhide along w/ their versions and other metadata.
This metadata can include a list of patches applied to the gem (as well
as direct access to their
On 04/09/2012 06:07 PM, Zuhao wrote:
Hi Everyone,
IsItFedoraRuby.com is an idea proposed in this year's Google Summer of
Code. The website will be mainly used for tracking the progress of the
conversion of each gem (similar to isitruby19.com
http://isitruby19.com), promoting the Fedora/Ruby
On 04/02/2012 09:39 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
- Original Message -
On 02/04/12 03:44 -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi guys,
here is a sumup of the last 2-hour FPC meeting, that me and Mo have
attended:
- Virtual provides are going to be killed completely (e.g. new
packages will now
On 04/02/2012 02:35 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
Has anybody gone through this migration process yet? For my project I'm
struggling with things like updating the Rakefile, getting the RSpec and
Cucumber tests working. The app itself seems to be performing just fine.
On 03/28/2012 03:36 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
- Original Message -
On 03/27/2012 03:14 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
One more email from me:
I don't know if you have been following the discussion about the
new Ruby Guidelines at the fpc ticket [1] or at the packaging list
(mainly, see
On 03/28/2012 12:16 PM, Mo Morsi wrote:
On 03/28/2012 03:36 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
- Original Message -
On 03/27/2012 03:14 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
One more email from me:
I don't know if you have been following the discussion about the
new Ruby Guidelines at the fpc ticket [1
On 03/27/2012 03:14 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
One more email from me:
I don't know if you have been following the discussion about the new Ruby
Guidelines at the fpc ticket [1] or at the packaging list (mainly, see last 3
comments, which summarize current state), but this week (wednesday,
On 02/20/2012 04:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.2.2012 20:40, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/25/2012 04:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that we have almost eliminated usage of RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
rubygem-ffi-0
On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 02/20/2012 04:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.2.2012 20:40, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/25/2012 04:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that we have almost eliminated usage of RSpec 1.x
On 02/14/2012 04:00 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
Together with FPC, we are working toward new packaging guidelines,
however there is one sticking point I'd like to ask you. Toshio is
proposing, that we should always repackage the gem in prep section
[1]. However, I dislike this proposal [2].
On 01/25/2012 03:40 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 25.1.2012 00:52, Rex Dieter napsal(a):
Mo Morsi wrote:
On 01/24/2012 04:50 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi,
since we finally got our Ruby 1.9.3 feature page [1] approved, we are
starting rebuild for Ruby 1.9.3. Everyone who owns a package
On 01/23/2012 04:23 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 20.1.2012 18:38, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/20/2012 03:58 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 19.1.2012 21:52, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/19/2012 03:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
So, obviously the bundle can't find the C extension. According to
some research
On 01/12/2012 08:56 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
There have been nice progress in this matter, nevertheless, there are
still some packages which depends on RSpec 1.x:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires
'rubygem(rspec)'
deltacloud-core-0:0.4.1-6.fc17.src
On 01/19/2012 06:39 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi rubyists,
yesterday evening, we finally obtained tag/target [1] for our Ruby
1.9.3 rebuild. Following that, I immediately build Ruby 1.9.3 there
and following with gems I own or maintain. I would like to ask you to
support me in this effort. I'd
On 01/19/2012 03:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
So, obviously the bundle can't find the C extension. According to
some research, I see this on rubygems.org
This works because rubygems copies the shared object from ext to lib
when the gem is installed.
I'm not sure that's happening.
Actually
On 01/03/2012 01:18 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 3.1.2012 18:40, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com
mailto:vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
I am wondering if we should mention Bundler in Ruby's packaging
guidelines
On 01/04/2012 09:24 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 4.1.2012 15:10, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/04/2012 08:56 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 4.1.2012 14:43, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/03/2012 01:18 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 3.1.2012 18:40, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:21 AM
On 01/02/2012 08:55 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi guys,
thank you all for your comments. I updated the guidelines draft to reflect them:
Again thanks for the new guidelines. Just a couple more comments inline
below
- BR: ruby is now replaced with BR: ruby-devel for Ruby packages.
On 12/22/2011 04:44 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
And now we have the remaining 2% of gems, which have binary
extensions, which unfortunately don't build and needs to be patched.
This situation is not covered by the guidelines, but you are right
that we should work that out, because this is
On 12/22/2011 09:09 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
- Since the Gem is installed using RPM, you*must* exclude the .gem file
Can this be a should and/or something that is encouraged but not mandatory
(perhaps recommend this be shipped as a supporting file, such as a %doc or a file in a
debug
On 12/22/2011 11:19 AM, Scott Seago wrote:
On 12/22/2011 09:09 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
- In the Rubygems section:
For every dependency on a Gem named|gemdep|, the package must contain a|Requires|
on|rubygem(%{gemdep})| with the same version constraints as the Gem
Can this be a should or can
On 12/14/2011 08:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing
repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like
to see in future Fedoras. The main changes are:
Hey Vit, a couple questions came up RE: Ruby 1.9.3
On 09/21/2011 01:51 PM, Tyler Smart wrote:
Yes I have started a project to alleviate the pain mentioned below, and will
be continuing it in my lunchtime to get a working demo.
Great! Remember the open source mantra, release early, release often [1]
I also started this project [2] a while back
And I'm working on backporting the security fixes into F14/F15, though
as always any assistance is appreciated.
-Mo
On 08/23/2011 04:50 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
So there is already Rails 3.0.10 available in Rawhide and update for F16
[1] is waiting for your karma.
Vit
[1]
Is there any chance someone can please review these?
Unfortunately don't have the cycles myself but since you're a proven
packager, I'd just ask on fedora-devel, or just watch that as there are
package swap requests that come through all the time. Most likely you
can swap a few requests at
On 06/16/2011 03:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 15.6.2011 19:28, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 06/14/2011 02:06 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
We should probably submit Rails 3.1 as a feature for F16. Any volunteer?
I am volunteering to do the packaging as soon as the stable version gets
released.
Hrm
On 04/27/2011 05:02 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
One additional question I had is how easy it would be to override the
dependency generator. Lets say there is a mistake in the generator or a
use case that it does not work for and/or generated incorrect
dependencies for, will ruby packagers have to
On 04/21/2011 11:34 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
2) I see most of rubygem packages also create -doc, but I can't find
which files should go this subpackage. I see most gem archive contains
files like README, LICENSE, Rakefile, CHANGES and directories like
tests, examples. I think it should be
On 04/21/2011 05:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hello everybody,
Today I was contacted by Aleksandar Kurtakov and he proposed, that he
would help us to autogenerate the RPM provides. This functionality is
allowed by RPM 4.9 [1], it means for F15+. This would help Aleksandar
for better RubyGem
I've also updated haml, authlogic, and compass in the rawhide and F15
git repos to the latest upstream releases to be able to work against
Rails 3. A F15 updates push is pending a successful build which in
itself is is pending these rails packages being available in updates,
but until then
Hey I granted you rights to activesupport as you requested. Feel free
to request access to any more packages you need. I'll try to sync w/ you
to help out w/ this later today but might not be able to do so till next
week.
-Mo
On 03/24/2011 06:15 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Following packages
74 matches
Mail list logo
