Re: EPEL6 Rails Version

2010-12-13 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 13.12.2010 14:56, Chris Lalancette napsal(a): On 12/11/10 - 08:56:54AM, Gaveen Prabhasara wrote: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Chris Lalancetteclala...@redhat.com wrote: On 12/10/10 - 01:46:31PM, Michael Stahnke wrote: I've been wondering which version of Rails we should try to put

Re: rails 3.0.x in F15

2010-12-20 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 18.12.2010 02:48, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a): Based on my discussions with the community and various parties that have a vested interest in this, I feel that it is a good idea to move the rubygem-rails packages to rails 3.0.x for F15 so that we don't get left behind and stay up to date w/

Re: rails 3.0.x in F15

2011-01-07 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 18.12.2010 08:12, Mamoru Tasaka napsal(a): Hello, Mohammed: First of all, thank you for analyzing what to be done for rails 3.0. Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 12/18/2010 10:48 AM +9:00: Based on my discussions with the community and various parties that have a vested interest in this, I

Re: rails 3.0.x in F15

2011-01-07 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 21.12.2010 04:15, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a): On 12/20/2010 08:37 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 18.12.2010 02:48, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a): Also the following are new gems which will need to be packaged * arel (1.0.1) I have prepared arel package here: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch

Re: Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for F15

2011-01-12 Thread Vít Ondruch
Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails development

Re: Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for F15

2011-01-14 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a): On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote: On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the later

Re: rubygem based rawhide packages stats on 2011-01-07

2011-01-14 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 7.1.2011 14:56, Mamoru Tasaka napsal(a): Among rubygem related rawhide packages on Fedora, the following packages are not using the latest gems provided by the upstream. Please consider to update these. Note that only rpms based on gems hosted on rubygems.org are reported in this mail.

check task for rubygems without bundled test

2011-01-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello, Currently I am dealing with several rubygems (arel, regin) that do not contain bundled their test suites, although the test suite is usually available on GitHub. It would be nice to run the test suite during packaging, however I am reluctant to modify the package in that way that it

Re: check task for rubygems without bundled test

2011-01-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 19.1.2011 17:00, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a): Couple of comments. On 01/19/2011 10:45 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hello, Currently I am dealing with several rubygems (arel, regin) that do not contain bundled their test suites, although the test suite is usually available on GitHub. It would

Re: check task for rubygems without bundled test

2011-01-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 19.1.2011 17:40, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 19.1.2011 17:00, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a): Couple of comments. On 01/19/2011 10:45 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hello, Currently I am dealing with several rubygems (arel, regin) that do not contain bundled their test suites, although the test

Re: Rails 3.0.3 / F15 update

2011-01-24 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 24.1.2011 17:44, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a): The latest versions of rubygems thor and treetop have been committed into Rawhide, thus starting the Fedora 15 / Rails 3 push process. All other required packages have been built and verified to be working, and in various stages of the Fedora

Execution of testsuite

2011-02-01 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello everybody, I have added some notes about test suite execution into the wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_talk:Ruby It would be nice if you can comment on this and also if somebody with sufficient rights can incorporate them into the main wiki page. Vit

How to distinguish between gems and fedora packaged gems

2011-02-03 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello everybody, Does somebody have by a chance some utility, script, something like gem list, what will be able to distinguish between Fedora packaged and regular gems installed? Vit ___ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Packaging rack-based applications for Fedora

2011-02-10 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 10.2.2011 17:21, Jeroen van Meeuwen napsal(a): On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:12:32 +0100, Michal Fojtikmfoj...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, I want to ask if there are any policies or guidelines for packaging 'rack-based' (Sinatra/Rails/..) projects for Fedora. Yes, there's a set of policies at:

Re: Packaging rack-based applications for Fedora

2011-02-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 10.2.2011 18:33, David Lutterkort napsal(a): On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:12 +0100, Michal Fojtik wrote: * Where should be these application installed? My preference is to install them inside /usr/lib or /usr/share directory. I wouldn't do that - it's only extra work during packaging, for no

Re: Packaging rack-based applications for Fedora

2011-02-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 15.2.2011 12:35, Mamoru Tasaka napsal(a): Well, Vít Ondruch wrote, at 02/15/2011 07:08 PM +9:00: Dne 10.2.2011 18:33, David Lutterkort napsal(a): On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:12 +0100, Michal Fojtik wrote: * Where should be these application installed? My preference is to install them

Re: Packaging rack-based applications for Fedora

2011-02-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
BTW: Redmine package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499959 Redmine is apparently going to be installed into %{_datadir}. The only difference is how was the original source obtained. For deltacloud-core it is gem while for redmine it is tar.gz, but at the end, it could be zip or

Re: Packaging rack-based applications for Fedora

2011-02-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 15.2.2011 13:39, Lukas Zapletal napsal(a): On 02/15/2011 01:26 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: 1b) Every gem added to Ruby slows down ruby require performance. Performance is everytime good reason and should not be overseen. Hi, this ^ is interesting. I am just starting with Ruby. Do you have any

RSpec 2?

2011-02-16 Thread Vít Ondruch
* 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

Re: RSpec 2?

2011-02-16 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 16.2.2011 17:40, Mamoru Tasaka napsal(a): Michael Stahnke wrote, at 02/17/2011 01:14 AM +9:00: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Michal Fojtikmfoj...@redhat.com wrote: On 16/02/11 16:52 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: * rspec - 1.3.0- 2.0.1 (stahnma) - rspec 1.3.0

Shebang

2011-02-17 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello, Is there some guideline how shebang should look? There are commonly used two versions: 1) #!/usr/bin/env ruby 2) #!/usr/bin/ruby I like the first version, because it allows more freedom and usage of 'environment-modules' for example. Nevertheless also the second variant has its

Re: Shebang

2011-02-17 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 17.2.2011 11:26, Michal Fojtik napsal(a): On 17/02/11 10:34 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hello, Is there some guideline how shebang should look? There are commonly used two versions: 1) #!/usr/bin/env ruby 2) #!/usr/bin/ruby I like the first version, because it allows more freedom

Re: RSpec 2?

2011-02-23 Thread Vít Ondruch
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

Re: Ruby v1.9 ?

2011-03-01 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 1.3.2011 06:41, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): Vit, On 2011-02-28 18:46, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 25.2.2011 18:36, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): People, I had a look through recent archives but couldn't see anything - are RPMs for Ruby v1.9 likely to be available for Fedora 14 somewhere? I saw

Why we are keeping the gem file in cache?

2011-03-18 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello I am wondering why we are keeping the original gem file in cache folder of rubygems? I see that they might come handy only in one scenario, calling gem unpack foo when working offline. Is anybody using this scenario? Is there any other reason? Vit

Update to Rails 3.0.5 or 3.0.6 for F15

2011-03-23 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi everybody, It is already quite late, but we should update rails in F15 before it will be too late. So the question is if immediately update to Rails 3.0.5 or wait for Rails 3.0.6 [1] and also who can help me with it? Vit [1]

Re: Update to Rails 3.0.5 or 3.0.6 for F15

2011-03-23 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 23.3.2011 08:32, Mamoru Tasaka napsal(a): Vít Ondruch wrote, at 03/23/2011 04:08 PM +9:00: Hi everybody, It is already quite late, but we should update rails in F15 before it will be too late. So the question is if immediately update to Rails 3.0.5 or wait for Rails 3.0.6 [1] and also

Re: Update to Rails 3.0.5 or 3.0.6 for F15

2011-03-24 Thread Vít Ondruch
(0.3.25) Vit Dne 23.3.2011 08:08, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi everybody, It is already quite late, but we should update rails in F15 before it will be too late. So the question is if immediately update to Rails 3.0.5 or wait for Rails 3.0.6 [1] and also who can help me with it? Vit [1

Re: Update to Rails 3.0.5 or 3.0.6 for F15

2011-03-24 Thread Vít Ondruch
already building new version. I will need help at least with some karma. Or I will ask for buildroot override. Not sure how I will proceed yet. Vit On 03/24/2011 06:15 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Following packages needs an action: actionmailer (3.0.5) actionpack (3.0.5) activemodel (3.0.5

Re: Update to Rails 3.0.5 or 3.0.6 for F15

2011-03-29 Thread Vít Ondruch
-3.0.5-2.fc15 Please test and give some karma if you find time. Vit Dne 23.3.2011 08:08, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi everybody, It is already quite late, but we should update rails in F15 before it will be too late. So the question is if immediately update to Rails 3.0.5 or wait for Rails

Re: rubygem packaging

2011-04-21 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 20.4.2011 15:07, Parag N(पराग़) napsal(a): Hi all, I am new to ruby package reviewing and to ruby also. I already got some help from vondruch on rubygem packaging but I also saw some problems which are not addressed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems 1) I

Re: rubygem packaging

2011-04-22 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 21.4.2011 21:39, Chris Lalancette napsal(a): On 04/21/11 - 05:34:36PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 20.4.2011 15:07, Parag N(पराग़) napsal(a): Hi all, I am new to ruby package reviewing and to ruby also. I already got some help from vondruch on rubygem packaging but I also saw some

Re: Provides: rubygem(name) automation

2011-04-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 26.4.2011 23:55, Mo Morsi napsal(a): 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

Fwd: Re: Provides: rubygem(name) automation

2011-04-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
I am forwarding response from Alex. Pu*vodní zpráva Pr(edme(t: Re: Provides: rubygem(name) automation Datum: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:14:15 +0300 Od: Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com Spolec(nost:Red Hat Inc. Komu: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com Kopie: ruby

Packaging for Gem and non-Gem use - Any real world use?

2011-05-18 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello, Is anybody using actively the practice mentioned in subject? What is the reason? I would like to see deprecated every ruby-* package where rubygem-* package is available. Vit ___ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: I have ruby 1.9.2 rpms

2011-06-02 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 1.6.2011 21:09, Mo Morsi napsal(a): On 05/26/2011 06:40 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote: Hello... Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2 rpms. Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV. http://rubyrepo.elctech.com/ feedback welcome.

Rails 3.1 for F16

2011-06-14 Thread Vít Ondruch
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. Vit ___ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Rails 3.1 for F16

2011-06-16 Thread Vít Ondruch
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 the stable rails 3.1 version is expected

Re: Using gem2rpm tool

2011-06-21 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello Lukas, I did some changes in my fork of gem2rpm [1], which hopefully solves most of the notes you have in your blog. The only one which remains unresolved is the License field, which is not available in the .gemspec file, so there should be some heuristics. I was thinking about port of

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
spec_helper.rb doesn't have necessarily anything to do with Rails, although Rails can use such file. Vit Dne 15.7.2011 14:45, Tyler Smart napsal(a): I have to migrate to Rails 3 for that, right :) One step at a time. = Tyler Smart Check out the IT.rb group:

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-18 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 18.7.2011 03:05, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 4:42 PM, TASAKA Mamoru mtas...@fedoraproject.org wrote: 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

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-18 Thread Vít Ondruch
1.x package would be better spent by ensuring that all packages work with RSpec 2.x and submitting patches upstream if necessary. Vit Dne 18.7.2011 09:59, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a): Vít Ondruch wrote, at 07/18/2011 04:37 PM +9:00: Dne 18.7.2011 01:42, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a): Mo Morsi wrote

Heads up - Rails 3.0.9 hits Rawhide

2011-07-21 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi guys, The Rails 3.0.9 are available in Rawhide as of now. Please test it and report any issues you will find. Regards Vit ___ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-22 Thread Vít Ondruch
RSpec 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

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-26 Thread Vít Ondruch
:0.6.2-1.el5.src rubygem-thin-0:1.2.8-2.el5.src rubygem-uuidtools-0:2.1.1-2.el5.src --Marek On 22 lip 2011, at 09:48, Vít Ondruch wrote: RSpec 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

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-26 Thread Vít Ondruch
:2.1.1-2.el5.src --Marek On 22 lip 2011, at 09:48, Vít Ondruch wrote: RSpec 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

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
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

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 27.7.2011 09:08, Marek Goldmann napsal(a): On 27 lip 2011, at 09:04, Vít Ondruch wrote: Just out of curiosity, why you prefer data_mapper over data mapper? Good question, especially when upstream calls it datamapper: https://rubygems.org/gems/datamapper --Marek

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
http://datamapper.org/articles/datamapper-100-released.html ... IMHO the dash version is published for compatibility reasons. --Marek On 27 lip 2011, at 09:25, Vít Ondruch wrote: Actually there are available both gems, datamapper as well as data_mapper

datamapper vs data_mapper

2011-07-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
I have created upstream ticket for this: http://datamapper.lighthouseapp.com/projects/20609-datamapper/tickets/1520 Vit Dne 27.7.2011 10:05, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Probably, but its wrong anyway. For example sqlite3-ruby was renamed to sqlite3. Nevertheless if you try to install sqlite3-ruby

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-07-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
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

Re: Parallel installable ruby stacks

2011-07-28 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello Sergio, Any proposal like this just over-complicate things. You are looking on Fedora from upstream developer point of view while our users just wants to use software. So at the end, if your application supports Ruby which are shipped with Fedora, then it is enough for you and for end

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-08-02 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello everybody, Here is updated list of Rawhide packages which still depends on RSpec 1.3: $ repoquery --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires 'rubygem(rspec)' deltacloud-core-0:0.3.0-11.fc16.src (mfojtik) jruby-0:1.6.2-2.fc16.src (mmorsi) rubygem-bcrypt-ruby-0:2.1.2-2.fc15.src

Re: Distributing Rails 3 apps

2011-08-05 Thread Vít Ondruch
Option 3 is my favorite. I am doing so in many packaged gems, which relays on Bundler for the test suite execution. Second best possibility is to maintain separate Gemfile.lock for each Fedora version (i.e. Gemfile.lock.f14, Gemfile.lock.f15). The appropriate one would be chosen by a)

Re: Distributing Rails 3 apps

2011-08-05 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 5.8.2011 14:41, Lukas Zapletal napsal(a): On 08/05/2011 02:13 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Option 3 is my favorite. I am doing so in many packaged gems, which relays on Bundler for the test suite execution. I knew there is somebody with the knowledge HOW to do it! Cool. Actually I've never

Re: Rails update F16 - Rawhide

2011-08-23 Thread Vít Ondruch
.fc16,rubygem-actionpack-3.0.10-1.fc16,rubygem-actionmailer-3.0.10-1.fc16,rubygem-railties-3.0.10-1.fc16,rubygem-rails-3.0.10-1.fc16 Dne 22.8.2011 14:29, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi guys, Just to prevent some collisions, I am going to update Rails to 3.0.10 version in F16 and Rawhide to fix

Ruby 1.9.3 spec file

2011-09-22 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello, I have recently pushed my ongoing work on packaging Ruby 1.9.3 for F17 to my github [1]. Pleas don't hesitate and contact me if you have any comments. Pull requests are welcomed. Vit [1] https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec ___ ruby-sig

Re: FUDCon:Milan 2011 - Ruby SIG meeting

2011-09-22 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 21.9.2011 17:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a): On 09/21/2011 07:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 21.9.2011 13:43, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): * Support of gems for MRI and JRuby. - Is it possible to share RubyGems? - Is it possible to share gems? Its difficult since the gems themselves

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 spec file

2011-09-22 Thread Vít Ondruch
Yes. I do not plan to backport anything. Its going to be complex change anyway. Vit Dne 22.9.2011 08:50, Philip Rhoades napsal(a): Vit, Does that mean 1.9 RPMs will not be available for F16? Thanks, Phil. On 2011-09-22 16:46, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hello, I have recently pushed my

Re: rubygem stomp build fails on el5

2011-09-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 27.9.2011 05:53, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): I'm trying to update to rubygem-stomp to 1.1.9. I was able to do this on all platforms except el5. I keep getting some type of stack overflow errors. I would appreciate any help. Task Info:

Re: FUDCon:Milan 2011 - Ruby SIG meeting

2011-09-27 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 21.9.2011 13:46, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 21.9.2011 13:43, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hello everybody, I'd like to bring to your attention that there was proposed by Ruby SIG meeting as part of FUDCon Milan [1]. I would like to take this meeting as change to discuss Ruby future in Fedora

Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-10-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello, I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby package by issuing: # sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-11-07 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 6.11.2011 06:55, Shawn Starr napsal(a): On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:41:47 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi guys, I have updated the repository to the officially released Rugy 1.9.3-p0. Installation should be now as simple as: # yum install ruby Vit Hi Vit, If I may request, can we

Ruby FAD

2011-11-16 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi guys, As was originally proposed by kanarip (Jeroen van Meeuwen) after Ruby-SIG meeting at FUDCon Milan 2011 [1], would be anybody interested in participation in Fedora Activity Day (FAD), which would take a part of Developer Conference 2012 [2], held in Brno, Czech Republic at February 17

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2011-11-18 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 17.11.2011 00:55, Shawn Starr napsal(a): On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:48:22 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: Hello everybody, Here is updated list of Rawhide packages which still depends on RSpec 1.3: snip Vit Do we have a simple howto to convert to 2.0? Would make things easy for me

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-12-14 Thread Vít Ondruch
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: - Install RubyGems library outside of Ruby directory structure into /usr/share/rubygems folder.

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-12-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 16.12.2011 21:20, Mo Morsi napsal(a): 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

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-12-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 17.12.2011 19:26, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a): Hello, Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/14/2011 10:33 PM +9:00: 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. First of all

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-12-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 19.12.2011 16:26, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: - what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going to file a feature? We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature proposal [1] and I'd

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-12-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 19.12.2011 16:51, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 04:40:46PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 19.12.2011 16:26, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: - what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-12-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 19.12.2011 17:18, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:06:23PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: I was thinking that, similarly to how Python 2.6 and 2.7 were handled, we could have a compatibility RPM for people who depend on 1.8, such as myself for my downstream projects. May

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-12-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
:39PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: My main downstream project is based on 1.8 (since that's what's in RHEL and will be for a while) so I'd like to see at least two releases with 1.8 to give me time to transition my work to 1.9 completely. May be you should start to be worried about RHEL 7. I am

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2011-12-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 19.12.2011 16:35, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a): Hello, again: Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/19/2011 09:43 PM +9:00: - Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now? Are you referring to my TODO [2]? Exactly. Since this is really tricky. I agree that, if I claim that the RI

Rails 4 will be only Ruby 1.9.3 compatible

2011-12-21 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi all, You are probably already aware, but just for your information, Ruby on Rails 4.0 will be compatible only with Ruby 1.9.3 and should be released in the summer 2012 http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2011/12/20/rails-master-is-now-4-0-0-beta Vit

Re: Prep, build and install

2011-12-22 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 21.12.2011 23:32, Steve Traylen napsal(a): Hi, I noticed the link to the new ruby packaging draft and had a comment. Currently the guidelines suggest to do everything basically within prep with build and install empty. Can it be considered to break this up into the prep build and install

Re: Prep, build and install

2011-12-22 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 22.12.2011 14:17, Mo Morsi napsal(a): 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

Re: New Ruby Guidelines Draft

2011-12-22 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 22.12.2011 14:17, Mo Morsi napsal(a): On 12/21/2011 06:36 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Hi guys, I promise that this is my last mail today :) Together with Vit, we have created a new Ruby packaging guidelines draft [1] and we would very much like you to go through it, so that we can discuss

Re: New Ruby Guidelines Draft

2011-12-23 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 22.12.2011 17:19, Scott Seago napsal(a): 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

Re: New Ruby Guidelines Draft

2011-12-23 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 22.12.2011 17:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a): 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

Re: New Ruby Guidelines Draft

2011-12-23 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 22.12.2011 18:24, Scott Seago napsal(a): On 12/22/2011 11:45 AM, Mo Morsi wrote: 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

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2012-01-02 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 24.12.2011 01:54, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): Thanks for these rpms. I've been trying to get the 1.9.3 srpm to rebuild onto EL6 and I've been having some issues. It looks to be centered around autoconf and m4 (surprise ensues). I can cleanly compile ruby 1.9.3 outside the spec file

Re: New Ruby Guidelines Draft

2012-01-03 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 3.1.2012 16:07, Scott Seago napsal(a): On 12/23/2011 04:39 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 22.12.2011 17:45, Mo Morsi napsal(a): 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

Re: Packaging guidelines - Bundler

2012-01-03 Thread Vít Ondruch
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 and what should be recommendations

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository

2012-01-03 Thread Vít Ondruch
I have pushed to my GitHub account updated version of .spec file which should reflect the most of your comments. Dne 19.12.2011 13:43, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 17.12.2011 19:26, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a): - build.log just shows: -- compiling

Re: Packaging guidelines - Bundler

2012-01-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 4.1.2012 13:57, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 09:40:52AM -0800, Michael Stahnke wrote: I really dislike bundler. However, from the Ruby ecosystem point of view, it's there and it's not going anywhere. It featured on every rubygem page. It certainly conflicts with

Re: Packaging guidelines - Bundler

2012-01-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
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, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com mailto:vondr

Re: Packaging guidelines - Bundler

2012-01-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 4.1.2012 15:35, Mo Morsi napsal(a): 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

Re: Updated Guidelines Draft

2012-01-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 4.1.2012 16:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a): 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

Ruby 1.9.3 update schedule

2012-01-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi rubyists, Just to let you know about the schedule. 1) The Fedora feature page [1] was marked as FeatureReadyForWrangler. So hopefully, Ruby 1.9.3 will be approved by next FESCo meeting which should be held at Monday 9th of January, if I am not mistaken. 2) We have already requested

Re: Updated Guidelines Draft

2012-01-05 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 4.1.2012 23:02, Mo Morsi napsal(a): On 01/04/2012 11:19 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 4.1.2012 16:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a): 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

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2012-01-12 Thread Vít Ondruch
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 (mfojtik, clalance) jruby-0:1.6.2-2.fc16.src

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 rebuild

2012-01-12 Thread Vít Ondruch
May be you could sent the links to the dependency trees right here: G1: http://yuml.me/78750b7d G2: http://yuml.me/74e13c09 G3: http://yuml.me/363a39bf G4: http://yuml.me/d75ca9b G5: http://yuml.me/15fffef9 G6: http://yuml.me/587b0dab G7: http://yuml.me/44021682 G8: http://yuml.me/37eb3fb3 G9:

Re: Migration from RSpec 1.3 to RSpec 2.x

2012-01-13 Thread Vít Ondruch
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

Re: gem2rpm and Ruby 1.9

2012-01-13 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Stahnkemastah...@gmail.com wrote: Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up.

Re: Package review request (ruby 1.9 attempt too)

2012-01-18 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hello stahnma, Good to see this review. I was thinking about gemification myself, but you were faster. As of timing of this review, the earliest possibility to build in Koji will be as soon as we will get the promised tag [1]. We were supposed to get it yesterday, but unfortunately it did

Re: More 1.9.3 fun

2012-01-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi stahnma, Thank you for your report and sorry for any inconvenience. Dne 19.1.2012 01:26, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): When installing a gem natively using ruby 1.9.3 package built from the github ruby.spec, I'm having trouble using them, specifically with bundler. When I install sqlite3, I

Re: More 1.9.3 fun

2012-01-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi stahnma, We are looking into Bundler now to find a cure. Could you please try the attached patch? It is done against master, however it should be straight forward to backport if needed. Vit From ce83a370930cde5ca2d6bc1c92f1d29603e44145 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From:

Ruby 1.9.3 rebuild started!

2012-01-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
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 like to see to majority of packages rebuild

Re: Ruby 1.9.3 rebuild started!

2012-01-19 Thread Vít Ondruch
=== BigDecimal === We moved BigDecimal out of Ruby into separated thread. If you package fails with message like: /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:36:in `require': cannot load such file -- bigdecimal (LoadError) Please add BuildRequires: rubygem(bigdecimal) into your package.

Re: More 1.9.3 fun

2012-01-20 Thread Vít Ondruch
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, 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

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >