On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 12:41 PM Pavel Valena <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:42 PM Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Dne 19. 09. 22 v 18:22 Jun Aruga (he / him) napsal(a): >> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 7:03 PM Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> >> >> I think it is the highest time to kick of the Ruby 3.2 thread. So here >> >> we go. I have just pushed the first update to private-ruby-3.2 branch >> >> [1] and here is the scratch build: >> >> >> >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92083633 >> >> >> >> There is nothing what would stand out. >> >> >> >> Nevertheless, I was testing the `--enable-mkmf-verbose` configure >> option >> >> submitted upstream by @jaruga (thx a bunch) with the ByeBug example >> just >> >> to find out that ByeBug is broken due to some upstream changes [3]. So >> >> just early heads up that there will be needed some changes for Ruby >> 3.2. >> >> >> >> As always, feedback is appreciate via regular channels. >> > > Hi! > Thanks for the build. > > I have tried to rebuild it in COPR, but I'm getting an error: > > ``` > 1) > Process.clock_gettime supports the platform clocks mentioned in the > documentation CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM ERROR > Errno::EINVAL: Invalid argument - clock_gettime > /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:143:in > `clock_gettime' > /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:143:in > `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' > /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:4:in > `<top (required)>' > > 2) > Process.clock_gettime supports the platform clocks mentioned in the > documentation CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM ERROR > Errno::EINVAL: Invalid argument - clock_gettime > /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:148:in > `clock_gettime' > /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:148:in > `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' > /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:4:in > `<top (required)>' > > ``` > Builds are available: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/builds/ > > Once this succeeds I plan to rebuild all rubygems we have in Fedora in the > rubygems-testing COPR repository. > > Pavel > - subsequent build succeeded, at least on rawhide + centos-stream-8 ... both x86_64 I'll try some more builds e.g. for epel-9 and proceed (see my previous email) with those buildroots that succeed. Pavel > >> >> >> >> >> Vít >> > Thanks for starting to prepare the new Ruby. It seems that this year, >> > the preparation is earlier than before. >> >> >> Eh, there were probably years when I started much earlier ;) >> >> >> > I am not sure that the ByeBug issue is directly related to the >> > `--enable-mkmf-verbose` option. >> >> >> Only indirectly. That is the package you were using for testing, so I >> used it as well. The issue itself is in Pry. >> >> >> ~~~ >> >> + ruby bin/minitest >> Ignoring byebug-11.1.3 because its extensions are not built. Try: gem >> pristine byebug --version 11.1.3 >> /usr/share/gems/gems/pry-0.13.1/lib/pry/code.rb:342:in `<class:Code>': >> undefined method `=~' for class `Pry::Code' (NameError) >> from /usr/share/gems/gems/pry-0.13.1/lib/pry/code.rb:32:in >> `<class:Pry>' >> from /usr/share/gems/gems/pry-0.13.1/lib/pry/code.rb:5:in `<top >> (required)>' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in >> `require' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in >> `require' >> from /usr/share/gems/gems/pry-0.13.1/lib/pry.rb:70:in `<top >> (required)>' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:160:in >> `require' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:160:in >> `rescue in require' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:149:in >> `require' >> from >> /builddir/build/BUILD/byebug-11.1.3/test/commands/pry_test.rb:3:in `<top >> (required)>' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in >> `require' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in >> `require' >> from >> /builddir/build/BUILD/byebug-11.1.3/test/minitest_runner.rb:21:in `block >> in run' >> from >> /builddir/build/BUILD/byebug-11.1.3/test/minitest_runner.rb:21:in `each' >> from >> /builddir/build/BUILD/byebug-11.1.3/test/minitest_runner.rb:21:in `run' >> from bin/minitest:8:in `<main>' >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in >> `require': cannot load such file -- pry (LoadError) >> Did you mean? pty >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in >> `require' >> from >> /builddir/build/BUILD/byebug-11.1.3/test/commands/pry_test.rb:3:in `<top >> (required)>' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in >> `require' >> from >> <internal:/usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in >> `require' >> from >> /builddir/build/BUILD/byebug-11.1.3/test/minitest_runner.rb:21:in `block >> in run' >> from >> /builddir/build/BUILD/byebug-11.1.3/test/minitest_runner.rb:21:in `each' >> from >> /builddir/build/BUILD/byebug-11.1.3/test/minitest_runner.rb:21:in `run' >> from bin/minitest:8:in `<main>' >> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PS30hz (%check) >> Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PS30hz (%check) >> >> ~~~ >> >> >> https://github.com/pry/pry/pull/2149 >> >> >> > I think the issue doesn't block adding >> > the configuration option, right? >> >> >> Right. >> >> >> > >> > Seeing your commit: >> > >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/6a98c151e6205b6d5774d0436f6492d97c321eb4?branch=private-ruby-3.2 >> > , I thought backporting the upstream commit to rawhide before >> > releasing Ruby 3.2 would be good idea. And here is the pull-request I >> > sent now. >> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/133 >> > >> >> Thx. But frankly, it changes patch for longer patch, so I don't see this >> really beneficial. I left the change as a separate commit mainly for >> documentation purposes. >> >> >> Vít >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ruby-sig mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> 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/[email protected] >> Do not reply to spam, report it: >> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue >> >
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
