Re: Ruby 2.5

I wish that the ticket you opened will fix this issue. (Just note for everyone in ML.) https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14737 Jun On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > As it turns out, this has other issues: > >

Re: Ruby 2.5

As it turns out, this has other issues: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574594 I am really desperate now :/ V. Dne 19.12.2017 v 16:12 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Dne 14.12.2017 v 19:03 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> Dne 14.12.2017 v 18:41 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >>> Dne 14.12.2017 v

Re: Ruby 2.5

> >> I found the difference of the behavior between Upstream Ruby and Fedora > >> Ruby. > >> Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install". > > Apparently I have met this issue already: > > https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1470 For your information. The issue that ri

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

Hello: Vít Ondruch wrote on 01/09/2018 09:15 PM: Dne 9.1.2018 v 09:51 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 5.1.2018 v 08:57 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): Hello, ruby folks: Vít Ondruch wrote on 01/04/2018 04:10 PM: So far, we have build 37 packages and Mamoru is kicking my butt, great job! Thanks to

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

Dne 9.1.2018 v 09:51 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Dne 5.1.2018 v 08:57 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): >> Hello, ruby folks: >> >> Vít Ondruch wrote on 01/04/2018 04:10 PM: >>> So far, we have build 37 packages and Mamoru is kicking my butt, >>> great job! >>> >> Thanks to Vít for ruby 2.5 migration!! >>

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

Dne 5.1.2018 v 08:57 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Hello, ruby folks: > > Vít Ondruch wrote on 01/04/2018 04:10 PM: >> So far, we have build 37 packages and Mamoru is kicking my butt, >> great job! >> > > Thanks to Vít for ruby 2.5 migration!! > > Current ruby 2.5 rebuild status: > $ dnf repoquery

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

Dne 5.1.2018 v 08:57 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Hello, ruby folks: > > Vít Ondruch wrote on 01/04/2018 04:10 PM: >> So far, we have build 37 packages and Mamoru is kicking my butt, >> great job! >> > > Thanks to Vít for ruby 2.5 migration!! > > Current ruby 2.5 rebuild status: > $ dnf repoquery

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

gt;> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 3:19:11 PM >> Subject: Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> The sidetag with Ruby 2.5 and all the rebuilt packages were merged into >> F25 [1]. Since the update of Ruby involved soname > You probable me

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

- Original Message - > From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondr...@redhat.com> > To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org, "Development discussions related to > Fedora" <de...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 3:19:11 PM > Subject

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

Hi everybody, The sidetag with Ruby 2.5 and all the rebuilt packages were merged into F25 [1]. Since the update of Ruby involved soname bump, we managed to rebuild most of the depending packages. But there are still some packages which are broken for various reasons (you can see the analysis of

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

Hello, ruby folks: Vít Ondruch wrote on 01/04/2018 04:10 PM: So far, we have build 37 packages and Mamoru is kicking my butt, great job! Thanks to Vít for ruby 2.5 migration!! Current ruby 2.5 rebuild status: $ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=f28-ruby --qf '%{SOURCERPM}\n'

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

So far, we have build 37 packages and Mamoru is kicking my butt, great job! V. Dne 3.1.2018 v 16:35 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi all, > > It is already tradition that in this time of the year, new Ruby version > is released. Since Ruby change proposal [1] was already accepted in > advance,

Re: Ruby 2.5

Hm, aarch64 build failed, but AFAIK, that is the same issue as: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13758 So chances are the build would pass second time ... Vít Dne 2.1.2018 v 17:33 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi everybody. > > Ruby 2.5 was released during Christmas [1]. One notable change is

Re: Ruby 2.5

Hi everybody. Ruby 2.5 was released during Christmas [1]. One notable change is that Bundler is not included in the package at the end [2] and I am glad for that decision, as long as the merge of Bundler and RubyGems is not done (or at least better, there is currently to much bundling going on).

Re: Ruby 2.5

> Neither is ideal, but I prefer the first option a bit. If somebody needs the documentation, it can be generated explicitly (gem rdoc). 3) Fixing the issue by yourself and sending the pull-request to rubygems project You asked the upstream today, then if they are stumbling to fix it, "3)" is a

Re: Ruby 2.5

Dne 20.12.2017 v 17:11 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Dne 19.12.2017 v 19:19 Jun Aruga napsal(a): > >>> 2) If "gem install" as root still works the same. >> "gem list" result is same for regular user's situation. >> >> I found the difference of the behavior between Upstream Ruby and Fedora Ruby. >>

Re: Ruby 2.5

Dne 19.12.2017 v 19:19 Jun Aruga napsal(a): > Vit thanks for the working. > > I tested it. > >> 1) If "gem install" as a regular user still works the same. > Right now there is a 2 type of packages. > Some gem package are "default", others are not. > The gem package that is managed the ruby sub

Re: Ruby 2.5

> I found the difference of the behavior between Upstream Ruby and Fedora Ruby. > Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install". When I tested some things for current private-ruby-2.5 branch, the result is okay like this. 2-1. Fedora Ruby by root user ``` sh-4.4# gem install webrick

Re: Ruby 2.5

One more thing. You would find format errors for your modification part if you run `rubocop`. ``` $ rubocop operating_system.rb ``` Jun On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Jun Aruga wrote: > Vit thanks for the working. > > I tested it. > >> 1) If "gem install" as a regular

Re: Ruby 2.5

Vit thanks for the working. I tested it. > 1) If "gem install" as a regular user still works the same. Right now there is a 2 type of packages. Some gem package are "default", others are not. The gem package that is managed the ruby sub package is not "default" like "bigdecimal" What is the

Re: Ruby 2.5

Dne 14.12.2017 v 19:03 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Dne 14.12.2017 v 18:41 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> Dne 14.12.2017 v 18:23 Jun Aruga napsal(a): >>> OK thanks for the info. >>> >>> Comparing the result of "gem list" command between upstream and our >>> Fedora package, I found the difference. >>>

Re: Ruby 2.5

Jun Aruga wrote on 12/15/17 15:12: Aleksandar, Thank you. What I can't spot in there is requirements around mini-portile and having gem dependencies match these of upstream. I see that version can be changed, no guideline about removing items. I am not familiar with mini_portile. I have

Re: Ruby 2.5

Dne 15.12.2017 v 12:47 Jun Aruga napsal(a): > Vit, > >> This appears to be related to the default location of where the gems are >> installed. Upstream Ruby installs the gems into their directory, we >> install the gems into home directory. > Thanks for checking about the default gem

Re: Ruby 2.5

Aleksandar, > Thank you. What I can't spot in there is requirements around mini-portile and > having gem dependencies match these of upstream. I see that version can be > changed, no guideline about removing items. I am not familiar with mini_portile. I have only used it a few times in my past

Re: Ruby 2.5

Jun Aruga wrote on 12/15/17 13:47: Alexander, Do we have a requirements document about ruby packaging? I'm all for avoiding upstream incompatibilities which we are currently not doing for some reasons. And having an official requirements document will make more clear what is a bug and what

Re: Ruby 2.5

Alexander, > Do we have a requirements document about ruby packaging? I'm all for avoiding > upstream incompatibilities which we are currently not doing for some reasons. > And having an official requirements document will make more clear what is a > bug and what is a feature. We have a

Re: Ruby 2.5

Dne 14.12.2017 v 18:41 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Dne 14.12.2017 v 18:23 Jun Aruga napsal(a): >> OK thanks for the info. >> >> Comparing the result of "gem list" command between upstream and our >> Fedora package, I found the difference. >> That can be confusing people. >> >> Some of the gem are

Re: Ruby 2.5

Dne 14.12.2017 v 18:23 Jun Aruga napsal(a): > OK thanks for the info. > > Comparing the result of "gem list" command between upstream and our > Fedora package, I found the difference. > That can be confusing people. > > Some of the gem are not shown in the result such as cmath for Fedora >

Re: Ruby 2.5

Do we have a requirements document about ruby packaging? I'm all for avoiding upstream incompatibilities which we are currently not doing for some reasons. And having an official requirements document will make more clear what is a bug and what is a feature. Jun Aruga wrote on 12/14/17 19:23:

Re: Ruby 2.5

OK thanks for the info. Comparing the result of "gem list" command between upstream and our Fedora package, I found the difference. That can be confusing people. Some of the gem are not shown in the result such as cmath for Fedora package ruby. When running below command on mock, we can load

Re: Ruby 2.5

Well, this is not the way you can get the right archive. You have to use something like: ~~~ tool/make-snapshot -packages=xz tmp ~~~ I previously published script which can generate the tarball using mock and update the spec file:

Re: Ruby 2.5

Thanks for that. I want you to add below kind of comment somethere in "private-ruby-2.5" branch or master ruby.spec file a way to create Source0 file. # git clone https://github.com/ruby/ruby.git && cd ruby # git archive --prefix=ruby-2.5.0-r61214/ 06d36a1 | xz > ruby-2.5.0-r61214.tar.xz

Re: Ruby 2.5

Hi everybody, Here is another test build of Ruby 2.5, this time it is r61214. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23681673 As always, you can find the .spec file in private-ruby-2.5 branch of ruby dist-gits. Vít Dne 13.4.2017 v 10:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi all, > > Ruby

Re: Ruby 2.5 change proposal

Dne 30.10.2017 v 17:45 Aleksandar Kostadinov napsal(a): > It appears some backward incompatible changes are made when resolving > constants. Given the close release of fedora 27, I'd suggest to update > to ruby 2.5 in Fedora 27 and leave 2.4.x in fedora 26. Sure, this was always intended just

Re: Ruby 2.5 change proposal

It appears some backward incompatible changes are made when resolving constants. Given the close release of fedora 27, I'd suggest to update to ruby 2.5 in Fedora 27 and leave 2.4.x in fedora 26. Vít Ondruch wrote on 10/27/17 17:20: Hi rubyists, Ruby 2.5.0.preview1 was released ~2 weeks ago,

Re: Ruby 2.5

Hi everybody, Yet another update of Ruby 2.5 is here, this time r60107. You can grab the sources from private-ruby-2.5 branch from dist git and try the scratch build here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22236512 The main difference of this release is Bundler merged into the

Re: Ruby 2.5

Hi everybody, After some bisecting, I was able to find the offending commit and build latest snapshot (r59657) of Ruby on all architectures. Here is the scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21464336 Please give it some test and let me know in case you'll have

Re: Ruby 2.5

Hi everybody, After some while, here is another snapshot of Ruby 2.5, this time r59424. You can find the changes in private-ruby-2.5 dist-git branch and here is scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20758987 As you can see, there are various build failures on