Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/10/13 0:26:
Hi again,
I have prepared update again. You can see the changes in the PR [1] I have
opened (not intended to be merged, just to show the diff) and the scratch build
is here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92950720
I have not spot anything which would caught my attention. Please give it a try
and let me know in case of issues.
Thx
Vít
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/134
Thank you for your work.
While Pavel is trying rebuilding rubygem- packages continuously, now I tried
myself rebuilding.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mtasaka/rubygem-newruby-test/
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mtasaka/heavypkg-newruby-test/
So far
* Out of 495 rubygem- packages:
- ~447 packages built successfully
- ~48 failed to build
* And out of other 58 packages which has "BR: ruby-devel" or "BR:
pkgconfig(ruby)"
- ~53 packages built successfully
- ~5 failed to build
Just a quick glance at these (I have not checked all of these, just selected
some of them)
* Removal of File.exists? / Object#=~ / "tainted"ness affects several pacakges
* rubygem-jekyll seems to be affected by keywords / positional argument
treatment
change??
By the way, is it better to create "central" bugzilla ticket to keep track of
ruby32
related issues for each package?
Regards,
Mamoru
_______________________________________________
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
