----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaroslav Prokop" <jar.pro...@volny.cz> > To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:05:03 PM > Subject: Re: Ruby 3.0 > > Hi, > > WEBrick is default in some applications, IIRC - e.g Sinatra [0] or > Jekyll - as it was a server in standard lib that came with Ruby. > > I am not sure 100% there, as it could just be rack default to search for > WEBrick, either way, it'll be better to watch out for > that.
Hello, I think there's no need for anything else than simple declaration of dependency in Gemfile / gemspec. Which should be there in first place. Webrick is simply stand-alone gem now, right? > > Quickly scrolling through the code of Sinatra and Jekyll it seems like > WEBrick is used in tests as well, so it's a question if it will be just > a matter of > adding require (maybe Suggests?) to gemspec or if BuildRequires will > need appending too. Yes, there'll be more of fixing like that for Ruby, and gems upstreams (f.e. `rexml` require). If you want to jump in on the train, here're some failed pre-builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/builds/ Please create a PR to both gem upstream and Fedora package if you're able to fix some issue. > > To answer your question, adjustments to packages might be needed and > packaging WEBrick might be worth it, but better inspection is needed > from maintainers of packages that package said software. > > Jarek > > > [0] > https://github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/a9649b4f18a9059de3161906c9c6e95ec06fdef9/lib/sinatra/base.rb#L1827 > > > On 16/12/2020 18:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Another snapshot is available in private-ruby-3.0 branch and the build > > is running here: FYI it's not synced with PR#70. > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57585626 I'll run COPR build in my COPR as well. > > > > Most notable change is removal of WEBRick from Ruby. I am not > > completely sure how much disruption this could cause in Fedora. I > > wonder if it is worth of packaging it as a separate package. Thoughts? > > > > Vít > > > > > > P.S. @jaruga + @pvalena thx for handling the GCC11 issues. > > Regards, -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
