- Original Message -
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
Dne 20.2.2012 13:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
Thank you. Unfortunately you do not solve how to migrate from
--repoid=rawhide --arch=src --whatrequires rubygem-rspec
The only remaining packages are:
rubygem-ffi (bkearney) - seems to be just packaging bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760009
rubygem-linode (stahnma) - upstream is already RSpec 2.x compatible,
it is FTBFS currently and it would
-daemon_controller-0:0.2.6-2.fc17.src
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --arch=src --whatrequires rubygem-rspec
The only remaining packages are:
rubygem-ffi (bkearney) - seems to be just packaging bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760009
rubygem-linode (stahnma) - upstream is already RSpec 2.x
(stahnma) - upstream is already RSpec 2.x
compatible, it is FTBFS currently and it would deserve update anyway
aeolus-conductor-devel (mmorsi, clalance, sseago) - Hm, are
rubygem(rspec-rails) 2.6 compatible with RSpec 1.x? I doubt it ...
rubygem-daemon_controller (pwu) - It seems there should
Dne 20.2.2012 13:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 02/20/2012 07:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 20.2.2012 12:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
Thank you. Unfortunately you do not solve how to migrate from BR:
rubygem(rspec-core) back to BR: rubygem(rspec). The main issue is
that rubygem-rspec-core was patched
packaging bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760009
rubygem-linode (stahnma) - upstream is already RSpec 2.x compatible, it
is FTBFS currently and it would deserve update anyway
aeolus-conductor-devel (mmorsi, clalance, sseago) - Hm, are
rubygem(rspec-rails) 2.6 compatible with RSpec 1
/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
jruby has been updated to rspec 2 as of the following commit
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=jruby.git;a=commitdiff;h=8d0234eb2c1876c02a5e0fb618bd40fbf18f7e6a
-Mo
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig
updated to rspec 2 as of the following commit
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=jruby.git;a=commitdiff;h=8d0234eb2c1876c02a5e0fb618bd40fbf18f7e6a
-Mo
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
Thank you. It seems that upstream version is using RSpec 2.x anyway, so
it should be straight forward.
Vit
Dne 12.1.2012 18:53, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Linode is in a FTBFS state anyway, due to some httparty changes.
When I am able to fix linode, it will require rspec 2.x.
On Thu, Jan
Dne 26.7.2011 18:03, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
Thanks, all my current SRPMs are here at
http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora-work
Thank you.
Note rubygem-datamapper is now rubygem-data_mapper so ignore the latter SRPM.
Just out of curiosity, why you prefer data_mapper over datamapper?
Vit
Probably, but its wrong anyway. For example sqlite3-ruby was renamed to
sqlite3. Nevertheless if you try to install sqlite3-ruby, it installs
sqlite3 anyway. Not sure how is that done, but it should be probably
reported upstream.
Vit
Dne 27.7.2011 09:53, Marek Goldmann napsal(a):
Fun, I was
So it seems extlib can be migrated to the RSpec 2.x quite easily. See
the attached patch.
Btw the package build fails later due to YARD documentation build using
Rake. I consider using of Rake as bad practice since Rakefiles are
usually too tightly integrated with developer setup, therefore
1.3 to RSpec 2.x
Dne 26.7.2011 18:03, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
Thanks, all my current SRPMs are here at
http://www.sh0n.net/spstarr/fedora-work
Thank you.
Note rubygem-datamapper is now rubygem-data_mapper so ignore the latter SRPM.
Just out of curiosity, why you prefer data_mapper over
2 as they are in F16 can be imported into EPEL right now. Any idea
how many packages depends on RSpec in EPEL?
Vit
Dne 21.7.2011 20:49, Marek Goldmann napsal(a):
There is one more thing:
Now I upgraded to RSpec 2 in Fedora. I plan to submit BoxGrinder to EPEL 6,
but there is only
Mo Morsi wrote, at 07/15/2011 11:15 AM +9:00:
On 07/13/2011 02:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
Since February, there are available RSpec 2.x in Fedora repositories.
However, as of now, the main package rubygem-rspec was not migrated to
RSpec 2.x and still provides RSpec 1.3 functionality
://docspace.corp.redhat.com/groups/itrb
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com
To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 8:36:08 AM
Subject: Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x
The most differences are usually in spec_helper.rb if you are using one
Hi all,
As a side note for RSpec2...
Pushed rubygem-rake-0.9.0-0.1.beta.0.fc15 to F15 breaks the integration with
RSpec 1.3.0 which is currently the latest RSpec version in F15. The required
file was renamed:
Now I've updated these 3 review requests (now using 2.5.x).
Review swaps welcomed.
Regards,
Mamoru
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Ok, so I did the reviews. I
* rspec - 1.3.0-2.0.1 (stahnma)
- rspec 1.3.0 and rspec 2.0.1 have large difference, and it seems that
many packages depends on rspec 1.3.0 (I may be wrong). So maybe we want
to package rspec 2.0.1 as rubygem-rspec-2 (correct me if I am wrong).
Also please check
On 16/02/11 16:52 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
* rspec - 1.3.0-2.0.1 (stahnma)
- rspec 1.3.0 and rspec 2.0.1 have large difference, and it seems that
many packages depends on rspec 1.3.0 (I may be wrong). So maybe we want
to package rspec 2.0.1 as rubygem-rspec-2
and rspec 2.0.1 have large difference, and it seems that
many packages depends on rspec 1.3.0 (I may be wrong). So maybe we
want
to package rspec 2.0.1 as rubygem-rspec-2 (correct me if I am
wrong).
Also please check bug650283
* rspec-core, rspec-expectations, rspec-mocks, rspec
21 matches
Mail list logo
