Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

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:
>
> 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 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
> package ruby.
>
> When running below command on mock, we can load cmath that is not in
> "gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
> list".
>
> ```
> irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
> => true
> ```
>
> Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
> upstream Ruby?
> Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
>
> Interesting. That is definitely unintentional. Will take a look into it.
>
> 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. And therefore RubyGems on Fedora
> are trying to load the specifications for the default gems from the home
> directory "/builddir/.gem/ruby/specifications/default" (testing in
> mock). So far, we never had the default gem specifications, so this was
> not issue.
>
>
>
> Here is updated build, which should fix the issues:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23793602
>
> The patch used to fix this in attachment. I'd love some feedback prior I
> push this into git. Mainly, I'd like you to test:
>
> 1) If "gem install" as a regular user still works the same.
> 2) If "gem install" as root still works the same.
> 3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs
> and runs just fine.
> 4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and
> installed correctly.
> 5) Any additional scenario you can think of ...
>
> Thx for testing.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>
>
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>



-- 
Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com
IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno,
Czech Republic
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 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
 package ruby.

 When running below command on mock, we can load cmath that is not in
 "gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
 list".

 ```
 irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
 => true
 ```

 Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
 upstream Ruby?
 Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
>>> Interesting. That is definitely unintentional. Will take a look into it.
>>>
>> 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. And therefore RubyGems on Fedora
>> are trying to load the specifications for the default gems from the home
>> directory "/builddir/.gem/ruby/specifications/default" (testing in
>> mock). So far, we never had the default gem specifications, so this was
>> not issue.
>>
>>
>
> Here is updated build, which should fix the issues:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23793602
>
> The patch used to fix this in attachment. I'd love some feedback prior I
> push this into git. Mainly, I'd like you to test:
>
> 1) If "gem install" as a regular user still works the same.
> 2) If "gem install" as root still works the same.
> 3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs
> and runs just fine.
> 4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and
> installed correctly.
> 5) Any additional scenario you can think of ...
>
> Thx for testing.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

> >> 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 document is not installed was fixed on the upstream.
https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1470
https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/commit/7c14198

Do we patch this or wait next release of rubygems?

Jun



On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> 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 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).
>>
>> So here is the build of stable Ruby 2.5.0:
>>
>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23973894
>>
>> The sources are, as always, in the private-ruby-2.5 dist-git branch.
>>
>> This is perhaps going to F28 unless some issues are discovered. I'll be
>> asking for the side-tag, so the rebuild can begin (there is not much
>> time prior mass rebuild).
>>
>> The release was not reset to 1, since rubygem-net-telnet is still of the
>> same version and rubygem-io-console version was not bumped (although
>> there were some changes, but I am tired of reminding this every time :/ ).
>>
>> Also, prior the official build, I'll have to temporary bump the
>> rubygem-json release, since the independent rubygem-json has the same
>> version but higher release already, that would be issue for the rebuild
>> of any other rubygem- package.
>>
>>
>>
>> Vít
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2017/12/25/ruby-2-5-0-released/
>> [2] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12733#change-68601
>> ___
>> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



-- 
Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com
IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno,
Czech Republic
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Mamoru TASAKA]

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 Vít for ruby 2.5 migration!!

Current ruby 2.5 rebuild status:
$ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=f28-ruby --qf
'%{SOURCERPM}\n' --whatrequires 'libruby.so.2.4()(64bit)' | sort |
uniq | grep rpm$ | cat -n



     17    rubygem-ffi-1.9.18-3.fc27.src.rpm
   - scratch build fails
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24006941
     Looks like rdoc generation fails with ruby segfault,
however when I try
     local rpmbuild, rebuild succeeds. But surely mock build
segfaults...

This is not just issue of ffi, but also webmock [1] build fails in
similar way, therefore I reported this upstream:

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14343


As it turns out, this is fixed in development branch, waiting for
backport to Ruby 2.5.

I applied the patch here [1] and the build is running right now. I'll
rebuild rubygem-ffi with enabled documentation after that.



Thank you. Now I enabled rdoc generation again also on
rubygem-http_parser.rb-0.6.0-8.fc28 .

Regards,
Mamoru
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Vít Ondruch]

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!!
>>
>> Current ruby 2.5 rebuild status:
>> $ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=f28-ruby --qf
>> '%{SOURCERPM}\n' --whatrequires 'libruby.so.2.4()(64bit)' | sort |
>> uniq | grep rpm$ | cat -n
>
>>     17    rubygem-ffi-1.9.18-3.fc27.src.rpm
>>   - scratch build fails
>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24006941
>>     Looks like rdoc generation fails with ruby segfault,
>> however when I try
>>     local rpmbuild, rebuild succeeds. But surely mock build
>> segfaults...
> This is not just issue of ffi, but also webmock [1] build fails in
> similar way, therefore I reported this upstream:
>
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14343

As it turns out, this is fixed in development branch, waiting for
backport to Ruby 2.5.

I applied the patch here [1] and the build is running right now. I'll
rebuild rubygem-ffi with enabled documentation after that.


V.


[1]
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/b1741da5b78890dda27bb312dca07fa42dd7356b?branch=master
>
> Vít
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f28
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Vít Ondruch]

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 --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=f28-ruby --qf
> '%{SOURCERPM}\n' --whatrequires 'libruby.so.2.4()(64bit)' | sort |
> uniq | grep rpm$ | cat -n


>     17    rubygem-ffi-1.9.18-3.fc27.src.rpm
>   - scratch build fails
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24006941
>     Looks like rdoc generation fails with ruby segfault,
> however when I try
>     local rpmbuild, rebuild succeeds. But surely mock build
> segfaults...

This is not just issue of ffi, but also webmock [1] build fails in
similar way, therefore I reported this upstream:

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14343


Vít



[1]
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/package/rubygem-webmock?collection=f28
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Vít Ondruch]

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 --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=f28-ruby --qf
> '%{SOURCERPM}\n' --whatrequires 'libruby.so.2.4()(64bit)' | sort |
> uniq | grep rpm$ | cat -n
>
>     21    rubygem-thin-1.7.2-4.fc27.src.rpm
>   - scratch build fails on some archs, and seems to be hanging
> on some archs:
>     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24007124

I finally managed to build this. It needed one test suite fix and
several build attempts, since this is really mess :/ It hangs, timeouts
and fails in various ways, presumably due to EventMachine.

Vít
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 8.1.2018 v 16:10 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
> - 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
> You probable meant F28, right? (ruby-2.5.0-86.fc28)

Right.

5 is dangerously close to 8 on my numerical keyboard. Sorry for the
confusion.


V.

>
>> 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 them here [2]. But luckily, some of the issues from
>> the list were already resolved). We will try to fix them, but of course,
>> any help is welcome.
>>
>> Also, please check your pure Ruby packages for compatibility with Ruby
>> 2.5 (Koschei will help you to catch those issues), but there were no
>> major issues during rebuild, so I am quite positive there wont be many.
>>
>> Let us know if you need some help ...
>>
>> And special thanks goes to Mamoru, who handled the major part of the
>> rebuild.
> Good job, both of you!
>
> Pavel
>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Vít
>>
>>
>> [1] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7228
>> [2]
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XGQNGECLGHMCCA2CLEYWLGRJFR2AR3VV/
>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list -- de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Pavel Valena]

- 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

You probable meant F28, right? (ruby-2.5.0-86.fc28)

> 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 them here [2]. But luckily, some of the issues from
> the list were already resolved). We will try to fix them, but of course,
> any help is welcome.
> 
> Also, please check your pure Ruby packages for compatibility with Ruby
> 2.5 (Koschei will help you to catch those issues), but there were no
> major issues during rebuild, so I am quite positive there wont be many.
> 
> Let us know if you need some help ...
> 
> And special thanks goes to Mamoru, who handled the major part of the
> rebuild.

Good job, both of you!

Pavel

> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Vít
> 
> 
> [1] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7228
> [2]
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XGQNGECLGHMCCA2CLEYWLGRJFR2AR3VV/
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list -- de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

-- 
Pavel Valena
Software Engineer, Red Hat
Brno, Czech Republic
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Vít Ondruch]

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 them here [2]. But luckily, some of the issues from
the list were already resolved). We will try to fix them, but of course,
any help is welcome.

Also, please check your pure Ruby packages for compatibility with Ruby
2.5 (Koschei will help you to catch those issues), but there were no
major issues during rebuild, so I am quite positive there wont be many.

Let us know if you need some help ...

And special thanks goes to Mamoru, who handled the major part of the
rebuild.

Regards,


Vít


[1] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7228
[2]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XGQNGECLGHMCCA2CLEYWLGRJFR2AR3VV/

___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Mamoru TASAKA]

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' 
--whatrequires 'libruby.so.2.4()(64bit)' | sort | uniq | grep rpm$ | cat -n
 1  clearsilver-0.10.5-43.fc28.src.rpm  - not tried
 2  dislocker-0.7.1-3.fc27.src.rpm - not tried
 3  eruby-1.0.5-38.fc27.src.rpm - not tried
 4  graphviz-2.40.1-14.fc28.src.rpm - not tried
 5  hivex-1.3.14-12.fc28.src.rpm - not tried
 6  kf5-kross-interpreters-17.12.0-1.fc28.src.rpm - not tried
 7  kross-interpreters-4.14.3-9.fc27.src.rpm - not tried

 8  libcaca-0.99-0.34.beta19.fc28.src.rpm
  - rebuild succeeded.

 9  libguestfs-1.37.35-1.fc28.src.rpm
  - trying scratch build 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24009712

10  libprelude-4.0.0-4.fc28.src.rpm
  - rebuilding, scratch build already succeeded.
11  libsbml-5.16.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
  - trying scratch build 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24009735

12  libsedml-0.4.3-5.fc28.src.rpm
  - rebuilding, scratch build already succeeded.

13  nbdkit-1.1.26-1.fc28.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails on some archs (not on all archs)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24008840

14  openwsman-2.6.3-9.git4391e5c.fc28.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24008468

15  pcs-0.9.160-1.fc28.src.rpm
  - test suite needs rubygem-ffi, which does not build currenely:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24008426

16  rubygem-escape_utils-1.1.0-8.fc27.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24006932

17  rubygem-ffi-1.9.18-3.fc27.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24006941
Looks like rdoc generation fails with ruby segfault, however when I 
try
local rpmbuild, rebuild succeeds. But surely mock build segfaults...

18  rubygem-hitimes-1.2.6-1.fc27.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails randomly:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23997285
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24006955

19  rubygem-http_parser.rb-0.6.0-6.fc27.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails, this one also seems rdoc generation segfault:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23996867

20  rubygem-puma-3.10.0-3.fc28.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails on some archs:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24007096

21  rubygem-thin-1.7.2-4.fc27.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails on some archs, and seems to be hanging on some 
archs:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24007124

22  shogun-6.0.0-5.fc27.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails, and build is already failing before ruby side 
change
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=17486

23  subversion-1.9.7-2.fc28.src.rpm
  - scratch build succeeded, will submit real rebuild
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24007573

24  uwsgi-2.0.15-7.fc28.src.rpm
  - scratch build fails: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24007543

Regards,
Mamoru
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 - Mass rebuild

[Vít Ondruch]

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, nothing can stop us from rebuild of ruby* binary packages. I
> asked relengs for side tag [2] and built there Ruby and rubygem-json
> already. Now its is time for your help.
>
> This is the list of packages, which very likely needs rebuild:
>
> ```
> $ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide
> --enablerepo=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires 'ruby-devel' |
> sort | uniq
> ```
>
> You can take the package and just fire rebuild, but please ensure that
> you are using f28-ruby build target [2], i.e. the build command should
> look like:
>
> ```
> $ fedpkg build --target f28-ruby
> ```
>
> Please be careful, because if you, by a chance, omit the f28-ruby
> target, you'll be building against Ruby 2.4 which is not what you want.
>
> If you won't do it by yourself, I'll be rebuilding all packages after I
> am finished with my packages. I'll be using fermig [3] to help mi with
> that. If you don't want me to touch your packages for whatever reason,
> please let me know.
>
> You can follow the progress at:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0=3299=-build_id=1
>
> or using:
>
> ```
> $ koji list-tagged f28-ruby
> ```
>
> As always, any help/testing/feedback is welcome.
>
>
>
> Vít
>
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.4
> [2] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7228
> [3] https://github.com/fedora-ruby/fermig
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 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).
>
> So here is the build of stable Ruby 2.5.0:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23973894
>
> The sources are, as always, in the private-ruby-2.5 dist-git branch.
>
> This is perhaps going to F28 unless some issues are discovered. I'll be
> asking for the side-tag, so the rebuild can begin (there is not much
> time prior mass rebuild).
>
> The release was not reset to 1, since rubygem-net-telnet is still of the
> same version and rubygem-io-console version was not bumped (although
> there were some changes, but I am tired of reminding this every time :/ ).
>
> Also, prior the official build, I'll have to temporary bump the
> rubygem-json release, since the independent rubygem-json has the same
> version but higher release already, that would be issue for the rebuild
> of any other rubygem- package.
>
>
>
> Vít
>
>
> [1] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2017/12/25/ruby-2-5-0-released/
> [2] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12733#change-68601
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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).

So here is the build of stable Ruby 2.5.0:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23973894

The sources are, as always, in the private-ruby-2.5 dist-git branch.

This is perhaps going to F28 unless some issues are discovered. I'll be
asking for the side-tag, so the rebuild can begin (there is not much
time prior mass rebuild).

The release was not reset to 1, since rubygem-net-telnet is still of the
same version and rubygem-io-console version was not bumped (although
there were some changes, but I am tired of reminding this every time :/ ).

Also, prior the official build, I'll have to temporary bump the
rubygem-json release, since the independent rubygem-json has the same
version but higher release already, that would be issue for the rebuild
of any other rubygem- package.



Vít


[1] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2017/12/25/ruby-2-5-0-released/
[2] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12733#change-68601
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

> 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 good way isn't it to promote fixing the issue isn't it?


Jun


On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>>> Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install".
>> This is interesting. I remember to notice the shorter output, but I
>> didn't pay enough attention to it. Will take a look at it.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Apparently I have met this issue already:
>
> https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1470
>
> So as long as upstream ignores this issue, there are just two options:
>
> 1) The documentation wont be installed by default.
> 2) The handling of default gems will be broken.
>
> Neither is ideal, but I prefer the first option a bit. If somebody needs
> the documentation, it can be generated explicitly (gem rdoc).
>
>
> Vít
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



-- 
Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com
IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno,
Czech Republic
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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.
>> Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install".
> This is interesting. I remember to notice the shorter output, but I
> didn't pay enough attention to it. Will take a look at it.
>
>
>

Apparently I have met this issue already:

https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1470

So as long as upstream ignores this issue, there are just two options:

1) The documentation wont be installed by default.
2) The handling of default gems will be broken.

Neither is ideal, but I prefer the first option a bit. If somebody needs
the documentation, it can be generated explicitly (gem rdoc).


Vít
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 package is not "default"
> like "bigdecimal"
>
> What is the future plan for these kind of pacakge such as "bigdecimal"?
> 1. These are "default" removing the sub package?
> Or 2. Current default package like "cmath" becomes not "default"
> creating the sub package?

There are several differences between how upstream works and how Fedora
works.

1) In upstream, "gem install" mixes the packages with the gems bundled
in Ruby. One of the reasons for "default" gems is to prevent "gem
uninstall" from removing these packages. On Fedora, "gem install" does
not manage RPM managed dependencies, so we don't face this issues and we
can ignore this feature.

2) On Fedora, we typically keep only single version of package
available. If for example upstream releases new version of JSON, we wont
to remove the old version and install the new version. This is different
from what "gem update" does, since "gem update" keeps the old version on
the system. As long as we have "overlapped" packages which allows these
updates, then it should be better to make regular gems from the default
gems.

Therefore the plan is to keep the stuff as it is now, i.e. keep the
subpackages as they are now. As far as I know, there should not be any
concerning difference in behavior of default and non-default gems. If
there is need for updated "cmat" etc, we should probably move them to
nondefault. We can do it optionally anyway, but there is more then a few
of them ...

> Fedora Ruby by regular user.
>
>
> ```
> [mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep default
> cmath (default: 1.0.0)
> csv (default: 1.0.0)
> date (default: 1.0.0)
> dbm (default: 1.0.0)
> digest (default: 0.1.0)
> etc (default: 1.0.0)
> fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
> fiddle (default: 1.0.0)
> fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
> gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
> ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
> scanf (default: 1.0.0)
> sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
> stringio (default: 0.0.1)
> strscan (default: 0.0.1)
> webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
> zlib (default: 1.0.0)
>
> [mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep -v default
> bigdecimal (1.3.3)
> did_you_mean (1.1.2)
> io-console (0.4.6)
> json (2.1.0)
> minitest (5.10.3)
> net-telnet (0.1.1)
> openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
> power_assert (1.1.1)
> psych (3.0.0)
> rake (12.3.0)
> rdoc (6.0.0)
> test-unit (3.2.7)
> xmlrpc (0.3.0)
> ```
>
> On upstream Ruby
>
> ```
> $ dest/bin/gem list
>
> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
>
> bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
> bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
> cmath (default: 1.0.0)
> csv (default: 1.0.0)
> date (default: 1.0.0)
> dbm (default: 1.0.0)
> digest (default: 0.1.0)
> etc (default: 1.0.0)
> fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
> fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
> gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
> io-console (default: 0.4.6)
> ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
> json (default: 2.1.0)
> openssl (default: 2.1.0)
> psych (default: 3.0.0)
> rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
> scanf (default: 1.0.0)
> sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
> stringio (default: 0.0.1)
> strscan (default: 0.0.1)
> webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
> zlib (default: 1.0.0)
> ```
>
>> 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.
> Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install".

This is interesting. I remember to notice the shorter output, but I
didn't pay enough attention to it. Will take a look at it.



>
> 1-1. Upstream Ruby by root user
>
> [root@unused-4-164 ~]# /usr/local/ruby-2.5.0.pre1/bin/gem install digest
> Fetching: digest-0.0.1.gem (100%)
> Successfully installed digest-0.0.1
> Parsing documentation for digest-0.0.1
> Installing ri documentation for digest-0.0.1
> Done installing documentation for digest after 0 seconds
> 1 gem installed
>
> 2-1. Fedora Ruby by root user
>
>  sh-4.4# gem install webrick
> Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
> Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
> 1 gem installed
>
> 2-2. Fedora Ruby by regular user
>
> [mockbuild@c187f3581b4e45ecb2837fe5ab6a0af5 ~]$ gem install webrick
> Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
> WARNING:  You don't have /builddir/bin in your PATH,
> gem executables will not run.
> Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
> Parsing documentation for webrick-1.4.1
> Installing ri documentation for webrick-1.4.1
> Done installing documentation for webrick after 0 seconds
> 1 gem installed
>
>
> I do not know this difference is this Fedora Ruby specific.
> This might be related to this issue?
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/9
>
>> 3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs
> and runs just fine.
>> 4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and
> 

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

> 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
Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
Parsing documentation for webrick-1.4.1
Installing ri documentation for webrick-1.4.1
Done installing documentation for webrick after 0 seconds
1 gem installed
```

2-2. Fedora Ruby by regular user

```
[mockbuild@23d5fd90050e4ad382984b434162aa67 ~]$ gem install webrick
Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
Parsing documentation for webrick-1.4.1
Installing ri documentation for webrick-1.4.1
Done installing documentation for webrick after 0 seconds
1 gem installed
```

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Jun Aruga  wrote:
> 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 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 future plan for these kind of pacakge such as "bigdecimal"?
>> 1. These are "default" removing the sub package?
>> Or 2. Current default package like "cmath" becomes not "default"
>> creating the sub package?
>>
>>
>> Fedora Ruby by regular user.
>>
>>
>> ```
>> [mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep default
>> cmath (default: 1.0.0)
>> csv (default: 1.0.0)
>> date (default: 1.0.0)
>> dbm (default: 1.0.0)
>> digest (default: 0.1.0)
>> etc (default: 1.0.0)
>> fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
>> fiddle (default: 1.0.0)
>> fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
>> gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
>> ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
>> scanf (default: 1.0.0)
>> sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
>> stringio (default: 0.0.1)
>> strscan (default: 0.0.1)
>> webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
>> zlib (default: 1.0.0)
>>
>> [mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep -v default
>> bigdecimal (1.3.3)
>> did_you_mean (1.1.2)
>> io-console (0.4.6)
>> json (2.1.0)
>> minitest (5.10.3)
>> net-telnet (0.1.1)
>> openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
>> power_assert (1.1.1)
>> psych (3.0.0)
>> rake (12.3.0)
>> rdoc (6.0.0)
>> test-unit (3.2.7)
>> xmlrpc (0.3.0)
>> ```
>>
>> On upstream Ruby
>>
>> ```
>> $ dest/bin/gem list
>>
>> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
>>
>> bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
>> bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
>> cmath (default: 1.0.0)
>> csv (default: 1.0.0)
>> date (default: 1.0.0)
>> dbm (default: 1.0.0)
>> digest (default: 0.1.0)
>> etc (default: 1.0.0)
>> fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
>> fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
>> gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
>> io-console (default: 0.4.6)
>> ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
>> json (default: 2.1.0)
>> openssl (default: 2.1.0)
>> psych (default: 3.0.0)
>> rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
>> scanf (default: 1.0.0)
>> sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
>> stringio (default: 0.0.1)
>> strscan (default: 0.0.1)
>> webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
>> zlib (default: 1.0.0)
>> ```
>>
>>> 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.
>> Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install".
>>
>> 1-1. Upstream Ruby by root user
>>
>> [root@unused-4-164 ~]# /usr/local/ruby-2.5.0.pre1/bin/gem install digest
>> Fetching: digest-0.0.1.gem (100%)
>> Successfully installed digest-0.0.1
>> Parsing documentation for digest-0.0.1
>> Installing ri documentation for digest-0.0.1
>> Done installing documentation for digest after 0 seconds
>> 1 gem installed
>>
>> 2-1. Fedora Ruby by root user
>>
>>  sh-4.4# gem install webrick
>> Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
>> Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
>> 1 gem installed
>>
>> 2-2. Fedora Ruby by regular user
>>
>> [mockbuild@c187f3581b4e45ecb2837fe5ab6a0af5 ~]$ gem install webrick
>> Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
>> WARNING:  You don't have /builddir/bin in your PATH,
>> gem executables will not run.
>> Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
>> Parsing documentation for webrick-1.4.1
>> Installing ri documentation for webrick-1.4.1
>> Done installing documentation for webrick after 0 seconds
>> 1 gem installed
>>
>>
>> I do not know this difference is this Fedora Ruby specific.
>> This might be related to this issue?
>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/9
>>
>>> 3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs
>> and runs just fine.
>>> 4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and
>>
>> I could not test below cases. I tried 

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

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 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 future plan for these kind of pacakge such as "bigdecimal"?
> 1. These are "default" removing the sub package?
> Or 2. Current default package like "cmath" becomes not "default"
> creating the sub package?
>
>
> Fedora Ruby by regular user.
>
>
> ```
> [mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep default
> cmath (default: 1.0.0)
> csv (default: 1.0.0)
> date (default: 1.0.0)
> dbm (default: 1.0.0)
> digest (default: 0.1.0)
> etc (default: 1.0.0)
> fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
> fiddle (default: 1.0.0)
> fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
> gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
> ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
> scanf (default: 1.0.0)
> sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
> stringio (default: 0.0.1)
> strscan (default: 0.0.1)
> webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
> zlib (default: 1.0.0)
>
> [mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep -v default
> bigdecimal (1.3.3)
> did_you_mean (1.1.2)
> io-console (0.4.6)
> json (2.1.0)
> minitest (5.10.3)
> net-telnet (0.1.1)
> openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
> power_assert (1.1.1)
> psych (3.0.0)
> rake (12.3.0)
> rdoc (6.0.0)
> test-unit (3.2.7)
> xmlrpc (0.3.0)
> ```
>
> On upstream Ruby
>
> ```
> $ dest/bin/gem list
>
> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
>
> bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
> bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
> cmath (default: 1.0.0)
> csv (default: 1.0.0)
> date (default: 1.0.0)
> dbm (default: 1.0.0)
> digest (default: 0.1.0)
> etc (default: 1.0.0)
> fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
> fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
> gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
> io-console (default: 0.4.6)
> ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
> json (default: 2.1.0)
> openssl (default: 2.1.0)
> psych (default: 3.0.0)
> rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
> scanf (default: 1.0.0)
> sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
> stringio (default: 0.0.1)
> strscan (default: 0.0.1)
> webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
> zlib (default: 1.0.0)
> ```
>
>> 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.
> Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install".
>
> 1-1. Upstream Ruby by root user
>
> [root@unused-4-164 ~]# /usr/local/ruby-2.5.0.pre1/bin/gem install digest
> Fetching: digest-0.0.1.gem (100%)
> Successfully installed digest-0.0.1
> Parsing documentation for digest-0.0.1
> Installing ri documentation for digest-0.0.1
> Done installing documentation for digest after 0 seconds
> 1 gem installed
>
> 2-1. Fedora Ruby by root user
>
>  sh-4.4# gem install webrick
> Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
> Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
> 1 gem installed
>
> 2-2. Fedora Ruby by regular user
>
> [mockbuild@c187f3581b4e45ecb2837fe5ab6a0af5 ~]$ gem install webrick
> Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
> WARNING:  You don't have /builddir/bin in your PATH,
> gem executables will not run.
> Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
> Parsing documentation for webrick-1.4.1
> Installing ri documentation for webrick-1.4.1
> Done installing documentation for webrick after 0 seconds
> 1 gem installed
>
>
> I do not know this difference is this Fedora Ruby specific.
> This might be related to this issue?
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/9
>
>> 3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs
> and runs just fine.
>> 4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and
>
> I could not test below cases. I tried to build rubygem-bundler for
> your Ruby RPMs.
> But I could not build because of conflict with ruby-2.4.2.
>
> rubygem-bundler
>
> ```
> $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --with tests -n *.rpm
> ...
> Error:
>  Problem: cannot install both ruby-libs-2.4.2-85.fc28.x86_64 and
> ruby-libs-2.5.0-0.1.r61214.fc28.x86_64
> ```
>
>
> Jun
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 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 cmath that is not in
> "gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
> list".
>
> ```
> irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
> => true
> 

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

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 future plan for these kind of pacakge such as "bigdecimal"?
1. These are "default" removing the sub package?
Or 2. Current default package like "cmath" becomes not "default"
creating the sub package?


Fedora Ruby by regular user.


```
[mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep default
cmath (default: 1.0.0)
csv (default: 1.0.0)
date (default: 1.0.0)
dbm (default: 1.0.0)
digest (default: 0.1.0)
etc (default: 1.0.0)
fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
fiddle (default: 1.0.0)
fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
scanf (default: 1.0.0)
sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
stringio (default: 0.0.1)
strscan (default: 0.0.1)
webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
zlib (default: 1.0.0)

[mockbuild@026f2c75e4664cfe887005e710a5497e ~]$ gem list | grep -v default
bigdecimal (1.3.3)
did_you_mean (1.1.2)
io-console (0.4.6)
json (2.1.0)
minitest (5.10.3)
net-telnet (0.1.1)
openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
power_assert (1.1.1)
psych (3.0.0)
rake (12.3.0)
rdoc (6.0.0)
test-unit (3.2.7)
xmlrpc (0.3.0)
```

On upstream Ruby

```
$ dest/bin/gem list

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
cmath (default: 1.0.0)
csv (default: 1.0.0)
date (default: 1.0.0)
dbm (default: 1.0.0)
digest (default: 0.1.0)
etc (default: 1.0.0)
fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
io-console (default: 0.4.6)
ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
json (default: 2.1.0)
openssl (default: 2.1.0)
psych (default: 3.0.0)
rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
scanf (default: 1.0.0)
sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
stringio (default: 0.0.1)
strscan (default: 0.0.1)
webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
zlib (default: 1.0.0)
```

> 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.
Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install".

1-1. Upstream Ruby by root user

[root@unused-4-164 ~]# /usr/local/ruby-2.5.0.pre1/bin/gem install digest
Fetching: digest-0.0.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed digest-0.0.1
Parsing documentation for digest-0.0.1
Installing ri documentation for digest-0.0.1
Done installing documentation for digest after 0 seconds
1 gem installed

2-1. Fedora Ruby by root user

 sh-4.4# gem install webrick
Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
1 gem installed

2-2. Fedora Ruby by regular user

[mockbuild@c187f3581b4e45ecb2837fe5ab6a0af5 ~]$ gem install webrick
Fetching: webrick-1.4.1.gem (100%)
WARNING:  You don't have /builddir/bin in your PATH,
gem executables will not run.
Successfully installed webrick-1.4.1
Parsing documentation for webrick-1.4.1
Installing ri documentation for webrick-1.4.1
Done installing documentation for webrick after 0 seconds
1 gem installed


I do not know this difference is this Fedora Ruby specific.
This might be related to this issue?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/9

> 3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs
and runs just fine.
> 4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and

I could not test below cases. I tried to build rubygem-bundler for
your Ruby RPMs.
But I could not build because of conflict with ruby-2.4.2.

rubygem-bundler

```
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --with tests -n *.rpm
...
Error:
 Problem: cannot install both ruby-libs-2.4.2-85.fc28.x86_64 and
ruby-libs-2.5.0-0.1.r61214.fc28.x86_64
```


Jun

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>
>
> 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.
 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 cmath that is not in
 "gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
 list".

 ```
 irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
 => true
 ```

 Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
 upstream Ruby?
 Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
>>> Interesting. That is definitely unintentional. Will take a look into it.
>>>
>> 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. And therefore RubyGems on Fedora
>> are trying to load the specifications 

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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.
>>> 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 cmath that is not in
>>> "gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
>>> list".
>>>
>>> ```
>>> irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
>>> => true
>>> ```
>>>
>>> Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
>>> upstream Ruby?
>>> Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
>> Interesting. That is definitely unintentional. Will take a look into it.
>>
> 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. And therefore RubyGems on Fedora
> are trying to load the specifications for the default gems from the home
> directory "/builddir/.gem/ruby/specifications/default" (testing in
> mock). So far, we never had the default gem specifications, so this was
> not issue.
>
>


Here is updated build, which should fix the issues:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23793602

The patch used to fix this in attachment. I'd love some feedback prior I
push this into git. Mainly, I'd like you to test:

1) If "gem install" as a regular user still works the same.
2) If "gem install" as root still works the same.
3) If the RPM packages in Fedora (probably just noarch) still installs
and runs just fine.
4) If rubygem- RPM packages build using this ruby are still build and
installed correctly.
5) Any additional scenario you can think of ...

Thx for testing.


Vít
From 60eb961c25f801ee43ca1be9393ab2f0a0546677 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?V=C3=ADt=20Ondruch?= 
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:00:20 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add Gem.operating_system_defaults to allow packagers to
 override defaults.

This change allows Ruby packagers to override defaults and lazily query
them.

This is very much the same change as #1644 to treat the
operating_system defaults the same way as platform defaults.
---
 lib/rubygems/config_file.rb |  2 +-
 lib/rubygems/defaults.rb| 21 -
 test/rubygems/test_gem.rb   |  7 +++
 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/rubygems/config_file.rb b/lib/rubygems/config_file.rb
index a4efed0f5a..deee38e6d9 100644
--- a/lib/rubygems/config_file.rb
+++ b/lib/rubygems/config_file.rb
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ class Gem::ConfigFile
   # For Ruby packagers to set configuration defaults.  Set in
   # rubygems/defaults/operating_system.rb
 
-  OPERATING_SYSTEM_DEFAULTS = {}
+  OPERATING_SYSTEM_DEFAULTS = Gem.operating_system_defaults
 
   ##
   # For Ruby implementers to set configuration defaults.  Set in
diff --git a/lib/rubygems/defaults.rb b/lib/rubygems/defaults.rb
index 43d57fc808..b8222877ae 100644
--- a/lib/rubygems/defaults.rb
+++ b/lib/rubygems/defaults.rb
@@ -177,7 +177,26 @@ def self.vendor_dir # :nodoc:
   end
 
   ##
-  # Default options for gem commands.
+  # Default options for gem commands for Ruby packagers.
+  #
+  # The options here should be structured as an array of string "gem"
+  # command names as keys and a string of the default options as values.
+  #
+  # Example:
+  #
+  # def self.operating_system_defaults
+  #   {
+  #   'install' => '--no-rdoc --no-ri --env-shebang',
+  #   'update' => '--no-rdoc --no-ri --env-shebang'
+  #   }
+  # end
+
+  def self.operating_system_defaults
+{}
+  end
+
+  ##
+  # Default options for gem commands for Ruby implementers.
   #
   # The options here should be structured as an array of string "gem"
   # command names as keys and a string of the default options as values.
diff --git a/test/rubygems/test_gem.rb b/test/rubygems/test_gem.rb
index 3225a05c6b..62b80c4945 100644
--- a/test/rubygems/test_gem.rb
+++ b/test/rubygems/test_gem.rb
@@ -1799,6 +1799,13 @@ def test_use_gemdeps_specific
 ENV['RUBYGEMS_GEMDEPS'] = rubygems_gemdeps
   end
 
+  def test_operating_system_defaults
+operating_system_defaults = Gem.operating_system_defaults
+
+assert operating_system_defaults != nil
+assert operating_system_defaults.is_a? Hash
+  end
+
   def test_platform_defaults
 platform_defaults = Gem.platform_defaults
 
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Aleksandar Kostadinov]

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 only used it a few times
in my past time. Maybe.
https://github.com/flavorjones/mini_portile

I think it is possible to update the document by yourself if you like.

The document is not updated since January 2015.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby


I just know about that mini_portile discrepancy and I don't agree with 
it. The thing is whoever takes the decisions to ban some dependencies an 
make incompatible changes to document it for future reference.



Below document might be useful for you to update document.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Reporting_problems_with_Docs

Jun




On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Aleksandar Kostadinov
 wrote:

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 is a feature.



We have a document for Ruby packaging here.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby



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.


Below is a proposed document for Ruby 2.5.
The section Detailed Description might be close for the requirement.
But I think that there is NOT requirement document for Ruby 2.5 as far
as I know.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.5


...





___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 specification,
>
> Why did we decide the gems to not default local but home directly?

I you build Ruby by yourself, they are installed by default into
/urs/local. The distribution installs the packages into /usr. If you
want to install additional gems using "gem install", they are installed
into those directories. To do that, you need enough privileges (and you
can see that historically, things like "sudo gem install" were always
suggested) and you are mixing RPM managed and gem managed packages (and
generally asking for problems). Alternatively you need to specify
additional parameters on command line to install the additional gems
into user directory.

This might be fine if you build Ruby by yourself or using RVM or rbenv,
but non of these defaults respects the purpose of distribution and
neither they are user friendly.

There is upstream ticket asking installation of gem to user directory to
become default and we are not the only distribution which changed the
defaults.

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11731


Vít
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

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 time. Maybe.
https://github.com/flavorjones/mini_portile

I think it is possible to update the document by yourself if you like.

The document is not updated since January 2015.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby

Below document might be useful for you to update document.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Reporting_problems_with_Docs

Jun




On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Aleksandar Kostadinov
 wrote:
> 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 is a feature.
>>
>>
>> We have a document for Ruby packaging here.
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
>
>
> 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.
>
>> Below is a proposed document for Ruby 2.5.
>> The section Detailed Description might be close for the requirement.
>> But I think that there is NOT requirement document for Ruby 2.5 as far
>> as I know.
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.5
>>
> ...



-- 
Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com
IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno,
Czech Republic
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Aleksandar Kostadinov]

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 is a feature.


We have a document for Ruby packaging here.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby


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.



Below is a proposed document for Ruby 2.5.
The section Detailed Description might be close for the requirement.
But I think that there is NOT requirement document for Ruby 2.5 as far
as I know.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.5


...
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

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 document for Ruby packaging here.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby

Below is a proposed document for Ruby 2.5.
The section Detailed Description might be close for the requirement.
But I think that there is NOT requirement document for Ruby 2.5 as far
as I know.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.5

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 specification,

Why did we decide the gems to not default local but home directly?
I think that we might have to add the default gem behavior as one of
the incompatibility list on the document somewhere.

And we need to take note that our other rubygem packages can be
affected by the compatibility.
Last time, we skipped a test case of rubygem-bundler by the compatibility.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-bundler/blob/master/f/rubygem-bundler.spec#_144


Everyone,

I want to add below thing as the requirement of Ruby 2.5.0.

- User can see stdlibs from "gem list", and they can update the gem's
version by "gem update".

This is a new available operation from Ruby 2.5.0.
Let me show you example with Ruby 2.5.0 preview1 version on upstream
for the operation.

```
$ dest/bin/ruby -v
ruby 2.5.0dev (2017-10-10 trunk 60153) [x86_64-linux]

$ dest/bin/gem list

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

bigdecimal (default: 1.3.2)
bundler (default: 1.15.4)
cmath (default: 0.0.1)
csv (default: 0.1.0)
date (default: 0.0.1)
dbm (default: 1.0.0.beta1)
digest (default: 0.1.0)
etc (default: 0.2.1)
fcntl (default: 0.0.1)
fileutils (default: 0.7.2)
gdbm (default: 2.0.0.beta1)
io-console (default: 0.4.6)
ipaddr (default: 1.0.0)
json (default: 2.1.0)
openssl (default: 2.1.0.beta1)
psych (default: 3.0.0.beta3)
rdoc (default: 6.0.0.beta3)
scanf (default: 0.0.1)
sdbm (default: 0.0.1)
stringio (default: 0.0.1)
strscan (default: 0.0.1)
webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)

$ dest/bin/gem update fileutils
Updating installed gems
Updating fileutils
Fetching: fileutils-1.0.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed fileutils-1.0.1
Parsing documentation for fileutils-1.0.1
Installing ri documentation for fileutils-1.0.1
Installing darkfish documentation for fileutils-1.0.1
Done installing documentation for fileutils after 0 seconds
Parsing documentation for fileutils-1.0.1
Done installing documentation for fileutils after 0 seconds
Gems updated: fileutils

$ dest/bin/gem list

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

bigdecimal (default: 1.3.2)
bundler (default: 1.15.4)
cmath (default: 0.0.1)
csv (default: 0.1.0)
date (default: 0.0.1)
dbm (default: 1.0.0.beta1)
digest (default: 0.1.0)
etc (default: 0.2.1)
fcntl (default: 0.0.1)
fileutils (1.0.1, default: 0.7.2)
gdbm (default: 2.0.0.beta1)
io-console (default: 0.4.6)
ipaddr (default: 1.0.0)
json (default: 2.1.0)
openssl (default: 2.1.0.beta1)
psych (default: 3.0.0.beta3)
rdoc (default: 6.0.0.beta3)
scanf (default: 0.0.1)
sdbm (default: 0.0.1)
stringio (default: 0.0.1)
strscan (default: 0.0.1)
webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
zlib (default: 0.1.0)

$ dest/bin/gem list | grep fileutils
fileutils (1.0.1, default: 0.7.2)
```

To filling this requirement,
1. We might have to create new subpackges for the cmath, csv,
fileutils, and etc in ruby.spec
This is about

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/private-ruby-2.5/f/ruby.spec#_933
# TODO: Gemify these libraries

2.  We might have to add those as Requires rather than Recommends like
blow current code.
 This is for the compatibility of upstream Ruby 2.5.0.
  If upstream Ruby is keeping the gems as a default, we would add
it as a Requires of binary RPM ruby package.


ruby.spec
```
Recommends: ruby(rubygems) >= %{rubygems_version}
Recommends: rubygem(bigdecimal) >= %{bigdecimal_version}
Recommends: rubygem(did_you_mean) >= %{did_you_mean_version}
Recommends: rubygem(openssl) >= %{openssl_version}
```

3  we might have to independent RPM packages such as rubygem-cmath,
rubygem-csv, rubygem-fileutils
If we keep the stdlibs (such as fileutils) as latest version as
much as possible, monitoring the upstream (
https://rubygems.org/gems/cmath , and etc)  rather than keeping same
version with ruby internal default gems, we do not have to do this.
That depends on the policy.

Jun



On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>
>
> 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 

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 not shown in the result such as cmath for Fedora
>> package ruby.
>>
>> When running below command on mock, we can load cmath that is not in
>> "gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
>> list".
>>
>> ```
>> irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
>> => true
>> ```
>>
>> Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
>> upstream Ruby?
>> Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
> Interesting. That is definitely unintentional. Will take a look into it.
>

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. And therefore RubyGems on Fedora
are trying to load the specifications for the default gems from the home
directory "/builddir/.gem/ruby/specifications/default" (testing in
mock). So far, we never had the default gem specifications, so this was
not issue.



V.

___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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
> package ruby.
>
> When running below command on mock, we can load cmath that is not in
> "gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
> list".
>
> ```
> irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
> => true
> ```
>
> Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
> upstream Ruby?
> Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.

Interesting. That is definitely unintentional. Will take a look into it.


V.

> We might also have to add additional gems as a recommendations like
> bigdecimal in ruby.spec as the result.
>
> ```
> Recommends: rubygem(bigdecimal) >= %{bigdecimal_version}
> ```
>
> No "default: " in the gem list for Fedora package is from past
> version. That's fine for me.
>
>
> ## Upstream
>
> On current latest trunk.
>
> $ dest/bin/gem list
>
> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
>
> bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
> bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
> cmath (default: 1.0.0)
> csv (default: 1.0.0)
> date (default: 1.0.0)
> dbm (default: 1.0.0)
> digest (default: 0.1.0)
> etc (default: 1.0.0)
> fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
> fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
> gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
> io-console (default: 0.4.6)
> ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
> json (default: 2.1.0)
> openssl (default: 2.1.0)
> psych (default: 3.0.0)
> rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
> scanf (default: 1.0.0)
> sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
> stringio (default: 0.0.1)
> strscan (default: 0.0.1)
> webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
> zlib (default: 1.0.0)
>
>
> ## Building with your SRPM, and checked on mock environment
>
> After installing all the binary RPMs from your SRPM
>
>  sh-4.4# gem list
>
> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
>
> bigdecimal (1.3.3)
> did_you_mean (1.1.2)
> io-console (0.4.6)
> json (2.1.0)
> minitest (5.10.3)
> net-telnet (0.1.1)
> openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
> power_assert (1.1.1)
> psych (3.0.0)
> rake (12.3.0)
> rdoc (6.0.0)
> test-unit (3.2.7)
> xmlrpc (0.3.0)
>
>
> Jun
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>> 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:
>>
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UENHTEFIE5QSFN56QZA2O562QRSL6PSO/
>>
>>
>> V.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dne 14.12.2017 v 15:16 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Possible?
>>>
>>> Jun
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
 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 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5
> development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got
> r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in
> dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18952639
>
> One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification
> of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is
> one big TODO in the .spec file [1]. The question if each of the gems
> should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/ruby.spec?h=private-ruby-2.5#n919
>
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
 ___
 ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
 To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>
>> ___
>> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- 

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Aleksandar Kostadinov]

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:

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 cmath that is not in
"gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
list".

```
irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
=> true
```

Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
upstream Ruby?
Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
We might also have to add additional gems as a recommendations like
bigdecimal in ruby.spec as the result.

```
Recommends: rubygem(bigdecimal) >= %{bigdecimal_version}
```

No "default: " in the gem list for Fedora package is from past
version. That's fine for me.


## Upstream

On current latest trunk.

$ dest/bin/gem list

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
cmath (default: 1.0.0)
csv (default: 1.0.0)
date (default: 1.0.0)
dbm (default: 1.0.0)
digest (default: 0.1.0)
etc (default: 1.0.0)
fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
io-console (default: 0.4.6)
ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
json (default: 2.1.0)
openssl (default: 2.1.0)
psych (default: 3.0.0)
rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
scanf (default: 1.0.0)
sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
stringio (default: 0.0.1)
strscan (default: 0.0.1)
webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
zlib (default: 1.0.0)


## Building with your SRPM, and checked on mock environment

After installing all the binary RPMs from your SRPM

 sh-4.4# gem list

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

bigdecimal (1.3.3)
did_you_mean (1.1.2)
io-console (0.4.6)
json (2.1.0)
minitest (5.10.3)
net-telnet (0.1.1)
openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
power_assert (1.1.1)
psych (3.0.0)
rake (12.3.0)
rdoc (6.0.0)
test-unit (3.2.7)
xmlrpc (0.3.0)


Jun



On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:

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:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UENHTEFIE5QSFN56QZA2O562QRSL6PSO/


V.



Dne 14.12.2017 v 15:16 Jun Aruga napsal(a):

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

Possible?

Jun


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:

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 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5
development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got
r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in
dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18952639

One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification
of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is
one big TODO in the .spec file [1]. The question if each of the gems
should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully.


Vít



[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/ruby.spec?h=private-ruby-2.5#n919

___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org





___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org





___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

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 cmath that is not in
"gem list" on mock, maybe those are only shown as a result of "gem
list".

```
irb(main):003:0> require 'cmath'
=> true
```

Is it possible to add those gems in the result as a compatibility for
upstream Ruby?
Hidden gems such as cmath are confusing users.
We might also have to add additional gems as a recommendations like
bigdecimal in ruby.spec as the result.

```
Recommends: rubygem(bigdecimal) >= %{bigdecimal_version}
```

No "default: " in the gem list for Fedora package is from past
version. That's fine for me.


## Upstream

On current latest trunk.

$ dest/bin/gem list

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3)
bundler (default: 1.16.1.pre1)
cmath (default: 1.0.0)
csv (default: 1.0.0)
date (default: 1.0.0)
dbm (default: 1.0.0)
digest (default: 0.1.0)
etc (default: 1.0.0)
fcntl (default: 1.0.0)
fileutils (default: 1.0.1)
gdbm (default: 2.0.0)
io-console (default: 0.4.6)
ipaddr (default: 1.2.0)
json (default: 2.1.0)
openssl (default: 2.1.0)
psych (default: 3.0.0)
rdoc (default: 6.0.0)
scanf (default: 1.0.0)
sdbm (default: 1.0.0)
stringio (default: 0.0.1)
strscan (default: 0.0.1)
webrick (default: 1.4.0.beta1)
zlib (default: 1.0.0)


## Building with your SRPM, and checked on mock environment

After installing all the binary RPMs from your SRPM

 sh-4.4# gem list

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

bigdecimal (1.3.3)
did_you_mean (1.1.2)
io-console (0.4.6)
json (2.1.0)
minitest (5.10.3)
net-telnet (0.1.1)
openssl (2.1.0.beta2)
power_assert (1.1.1)
psych (3.0.0)
rake (12.3.0)
rdoc (6.0.0)
test-unit (3.2.7)
xmlrpc (0.3.0)


Jun



On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> 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:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UENHTEFIE5QSFN56QZA2O562QRSL6PSO/
>
>
> V.
>
>
>
> Dne 14.12.2017 v 15:16 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
>> 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
>>
>> Possible?
>>
>> Jun
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>>> 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 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5
 development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got
 r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in
 dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build:

 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18952639

 One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification
 of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is
 one big TODO in the .spec file [1]. The question if each of the gems
 should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully.


 Vít



 [1]
 http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/ruby.spec?h=private-ruby-2.5#n919

 ___
 ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
 To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> ___
>>> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
>>
>
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



-- 
Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com
IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno,
Czech Republic
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UENHTEFIE5QSFN56QZA2O562QRSL6PSO/


V.



Dne 14.12.2017 v 15:16 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
> 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
>
> Possible?
>
> Jun
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>> 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 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5
>>> development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got
>>> r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in
>>> dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build:
>>>
>>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18952639
>>>
>>> One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification
>>> of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is
>>> one big TODO in the .spec file [1]. The question if each of the gems
>>> should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vít
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/ruby.spec?h=private-ruby-2.5#n919
>>>
>>> ___
>>> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> ___
>> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>

___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Jun Aruga]

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

Possible?

Jun


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> 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 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5
>> development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got
>> r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in
>> dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build:
>>
>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18952639
>>
>> One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification
>> of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is
>> one big TODO in the .spec file [1]. The question if each of the gems
>> should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully.
>>
>>
>> Vít
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/ruby.spec?h=private-ruby-2.5#n919
>>
>> ___
>> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



-- 
Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com
IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno,
Czech Republic
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 2.4 was released during Christmas and the upcoming Ruby 2.5
> development is advancing, so I continue in the tradition and I got
> r58319 packaged for testing. The updated .spec file is available in
> dist-git private-ruby-2.5 branch and here is the scratch build:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18952639
>
> One thing I'd like to point out that upstream is working on gemification
> of StdLib. The question ATM is what the result will be. Hence, there is
> one big TODO in the .spec file [1]. The question if each of the gems
> should be unbundled or not. The future will tell hopefully.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/ruby.spec?h=private-ruby-2.5#n919
>
> ___
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 change proposal

[Vít Ondruch]

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 for F28+ (please see the "Targeted
release: Fedora 28"). Rebuilding the older releases would be insane, not
mentioning it is still almost two months prior the official release.

And since there were no other complaints I just switched the change to
ChangeReadyForWrangler. So it is going to be announced and hopefully
later approved by FESCo.


V.


>
> Vít Ondruch wrote on 10/27/17 17:20:
>> Hi rubyists,
>>
>> Ruby 2.5.0.preview1 was released ~2 weeks ago, so it is right about the
>> time to start with its preparation, so I put together change proposal
>> for Ruby 2.5 in Fedora 26 [1]. Any feedback is welcome. If no feedback,
>> I'll propose this change to package
>> wrangler in a week or so ...
>>
>>
>> Vít
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.5
>> ___
>> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5 change proposal

[Aleksandar Kostadinov]

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, so it is right about the
time to start with its preparation, so I put together change proposal
for Ruby 2.5 in Fedora 26 [1]. Any feedback is welcome. If no feedback,
I'll propose this change to package
wrangler in a week or so ...


Vít



[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.5
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 official
Ruby repository. However, I decided to drop the Bundler from the Ruby
ATM, mainly due to extensive bundling and other awful stuff. I made a
call to remove the Bundler again [1], since there is no design behind it
IMO. However, I am not 100% sure it won't break something, so please let
me know ...


Vít



[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13978
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 issues with it.


Vít
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ruby 2.5

[Vít Ondruch]

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 various platforms.
I've reported them upstream, but so far without response. It seems I'll
need some support from secondary arches team ...

Anyway, if you have any feedback, please let me know.


Vít
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org