RFS: ruby-path-expander 1.1.0-1, ruby-morpher 0.2.6-1, ruby-anima 0.3.1-1, ruby-unparser 0.4.7-1

Hi, The following packages are ready to be uploaded (I also verified the points listed on http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging#Requesting_Sponsorship). The tests for ruby-unparser were disabled because ruby-devtools is currently not packaged for Debian, and to do so would require

[RFS] ruby-rspec-block-is-expected

Hey, I've packaged ruby-rspec-block-is-expected. Request for review and sponsorship. My work was pushed to https://salsa.debian.org/avron/ruby-rspec-block-is-expected/ . Regards, Abraham Raji

Re: [RFS] ruby-ast

Hi Abraham, On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:21 AM Abraham Raji wrote: > Request for review and sponsorship. Thanks, uploaded! Best, Utkarsh

[RFS] ruby-ast

Hi, I have updated the ruby-ast from 2.4.0 to 2.4.1 because the package ruby-parser needs it. The updated package has given a clean build on sbuild. No conflicts were found with reverse dependencies. The updated files are pushed to https://salsa.debian.org/avron/ruby-ast. Request for review and

Re: RFS: ruby-ruby-dep

April 6, 2020 1:04 AM, "Daniel Leidert" wrote: > Hi Kiran, > > I reviewed your package. Some notes: > > Am Samstag, den 04.04.2020, 22:32 + schrieb ki...@disroot.org: > >> I prepared the packaging of ruby-ruby-dep. It is lintian clean and tested >> with sbuild. Further >> information

Re: RFS: ruby-procto

Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2020, 20:07 + schrieb ki...@disroot.org: > > I prepared the packaging of ruby-adamantium. ^^^ ruby-adamantium has already a repository (based on yours as it seems) and has already been uploaded and accepted:

Re: RFS: ruby-procto

Hi, On 12/03/20 1:37 am, ki...@disroot.org wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared the packaging of ruby-adamantium. It is lintian clean and tested > with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the > URL : > > https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-procto > also

Re: RFS: ruby-ruby-dep

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:02 am, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: Hi Kiran, On Sun, 5 Apr, 2020, 4:18 AM , wrote: https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-ruby-dep Consider to review and upload it. Please also enable tests by pulling the specs/ from g/h. Utkarsh, It would be a good idea to

Re: RFS: ruby-gem-isolator

Hi Kiran, On Sun, 5 Apr, 2020, 5:15 AM , wrote: > https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-gem-isolator > > Consider to review and upload it. Please also enable tests by pulling specs/ from g/h. Best, Utkarsh >

Re: RFS: ruby-ruby-dep

Hi Kiran, On Sun, 5 Apr, 2020, 4:18 AM , wrote: > https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-ruby-dep > Consider to review and upload it. > Please also enable tests by pulling the specs/ from g/h. Best, Utkarsh >

Re: RFS: ruby-gem-isolator

Am Samstag, den 04.04.2020, 23:28 + schrieb ki...@disroot.org: > I prepared the packaging of ruby-gem-isolator. It is lintian clean and tested > with sbuild. Further > information about this package can be accessed from the URL : > > https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-gem-isolator >

Re: RFS: ruby-ruby-dep

Hi Kiran, I reviewed your package. Some notes: Am Samstag, den 04.04.2020, 22:32 + schrieb ki...@disroot.org: > I prepared the packaging of ruby-ruby-dep. It is lintian clean and tested > with sbuild. Further > information about this package can be accessed from the URL : > >

Re: RFS: ruby-ruby-dep

Am Samstag, den 04.04.2020, 22:32 + schrieb ki...@disroot.org: > > I prepared the packaging of ruby-ruby-dep. It is lintian clean and tested > with sbuild. Further > information about this package can be accessed from the URL : > > https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-ruby-dep > >

RFS: ruby-gem-isolator

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-gem-isolator. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-gem-isolator also like to add it to:

RFS: ruby-ruby-dep

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-ruby-dep. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-ruby-dep also like to add it to: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-ruby-dep

Re: RFS: ruby-net-http-persistent

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 4:45 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: Hi, On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 4:19 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: How did you run the autopkgtest? I'm still seeing the failure. After bundle-bin-path there should be a testsuite which failed. Can anyone else confirm this? I can confirm

Re: RFS: ruby-net-http-persistent

Hi, On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 4:19 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: > How did you run the autopkgtest? I'm still seeing the failure. After > bundle-bin-path there should be a testsuite which failed. Can anyone else > confirm this? I can confirm that the testsuite fails. There seems to be an

Re: RFS: ruby-net-http-persistent

On 2020, മാർച്ച് 14 11:53:08 AM IST, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > >On 2020, മാർച്ച് 14 10:00:26 AM IST, Samyak Jain > wrote: >>Hey, >> >>For the ruby-faraday to be uploaded to unstable for v1.0.0. We need to >>upload ruby-net-http-persistent to unstable. > >bundler autopkgtest was failing

Re: RFS: ruby-net-http-persistent

On 2020, മാർച്ച് 14 10:00:26 AM IST, Samyak Jain wrote: >Hey, > >For the ruby-faraday to be uploaded to unstable for v1.0.0. We need to >upload ruby-net-http-persistent to unstable. bundler autopkgtest was failing earlier. Happy to see it working now. I'll upload it. >The changelog entry

Re: RFS: ruby-concord

Hi, On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:23 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: > > Consider to review and upload it. > > Uploaded and pushed to ruby-team on salsa. I don't think mentioning it > is a dependency of gitlab in description is useful (it is useful in an > itp), so removed it. The extended description is

RFS: ruby-net-http-persistent

Hey, For the ruby-faraday to be uploaded to unstable for v1.0.0. We need to upload ruby-net-http-persistent to unstable. The changelog entry has been pushed to the team[1]. The following dependencies and reverse dependencies; bundler autopkgtest [09:12:46]: test bundle-bin-path: - - - - - - - -

RFS: ruby-simple-po-parser

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-simple-po-parser. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-simple-po-parser also like to add it to:

Re: RFS: ruby-concord

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:23 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:33 pm, ki...@disroot.org wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I prepared the packaging of ruby-concord. It is lintian clean and > > tested with sbuild. Further > > information about this package can be accessed from the URL

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

El vie., 13 mar. 2020 19:40, David Suarez escribió: > > > El vie., 13 mar. 2020 19:32, Antonio Terceiro > escribió: > >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 06:47:12PM +0100, David Suárez wrote: >> > El vie., 13 mar. 2020 18:30, Pirate Praveen >> > escribió: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

El vie., 13 mar. 2020 19:32, Antonio Terceiro escribió: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 06:47:12PM +0100, David Suárez wrote: > > El vie., 13 mar. 2020 18:30, Pirate Praveen > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 pm, Cédric Boutillier > > > wrote: > > > > Dear David, > > >

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 06:47:12PM +0100, David Suárez wrote: > El vie., 13 mar. 2020 18:30, Pirate Praveen > escribió: > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 pm, Cédric Boutillier > > wrote: > > > Dear David, > > > > > > I am re-reading your mail > > > > >

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

El vie., 13 mar. 2020 18:30, Pirate Praveen escribió: > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 pm, Cédric Boutillier > wrote: > > Dear David, > > > > I am re-reading your mail > > > https://lists.debian.org/CAJg5+Z2th-FNAxLNHb9+xkRz6O1RKb0RFxGCJ=yHOFSw2F38=w...@mail.gmail.com > > about the status of

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 pm, Cédric Boutillier wrote: Dear David, I am re-reading your mail https://lists.debian.org/CAJg5+Z2th-FNAxLNHb9+xkRz6O1RKb0RFxGCJ=yHOFSw2F38=w...@mail.gmail.com about the status of the various versions of ruby-aws-sdk. As I understand the situation now: -

Re: RFS: ruby-concord

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:33 pm, ki...@disroot.org wrote: Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-concord. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-concord also like to add it

RFS: ruby-guard-rspec

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-guard-rspec. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-guard-rspec also like to add it to:

RFS: ruby-procto

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-adamantium. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-procto also like to add it to:

Re: RFS: ruby-adamantium

Hi Kiran, On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:45 PM wrote: > both things are done > can u review it Uploaded with a minor fix. Check the last commit. And thanks for your quick fix! Best, Utkarsh --- ML Guidelines: http://www.shakthimaan.com/downloads/glv/presentations/mailing-list-etiquette.pdf

Re: RFS: ruby-abstract-type

Hi Praveen, On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:44 AM Pirate Praveen wrote: >> I think new packages have an exception on this one. > No exceptions, a source only upload is required to migrate to testing. For > tests, it requires at least devtools from git repo, probably more, so I > suggested to

RFS: ruby-concord

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-concord. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-concord also like to add it to: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-concord Consider

Re: RFS: ruby-adamantium

March 10, 2020 11:43 AM, "Utkarsh Gupta" wrote: > Hi Kiran, > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:03 AM wrote: > >> Consider to review and upload it. > > The extended description is too short. Could you please add a bit more > of an explanation to it? > Additionally, run `cme fix dpkg` and commit

Re: RFS: ruby-adamantium

Hi Kiran, On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:03 AM wrote: > Consider to review and upload it. The extended description is too short. Could you please add a bit more of an explanation to it? Additionally, run `cme fix dpkg` and commit the result :) Once these two things are done, I'll be happy to

Re: RFS: ruby-abstract-type

On 2020, മാർച്ച് 10 9:11:34 AM IST, Abhijith PA wrote: >Utkarsh, > >On 10/03/20 1:11 am, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >> Hi Kiran, >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:27 PM wrote: >>> Consider to review and upload it. >> >> Thank you for your work; uploaded! :) >> Once it clears NEW, we need to do a

Re: RFS: ruby-abstract-type

Utkarsh, On 10/03/20 1:11 am, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > Hi Kiran, > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:27 PM wrote: >> Consider to review and upload it. > > Thank you for your work; uploaded! :) > Once it clears NEW, we need to do a source-only upload for it migrate > to testing. I think new packages

RFS: ruby-adamantium

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-adamantium. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-adamantium also like to add it to:

Re: RFS: ruby-abstract-type

Hi Kiran, On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:27 PM wrote: > Consider to review and upload it. Thank you for your work; uploaded! :) Once it clears NEW, we need to do a source-only upload for it migrate to testing. For that upload, I'd love it if you could pull the spec/* files from g/h to get the tests

RFS: ruby-abstract-type

Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-abstract-type. It is lintian clean and tested with pbuilder. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-abstract-type Consider to review and upload it. Regards, kiran s kunjumon

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

El jue., 27 feb. 2020 22:29, Cédric Boutillier escribió: > Dear David, > > I am re-reading your mail > > https://lists.debian.org/CAJg5+Z2th-FNAxLNHb9+xkRz6O1RKb0RFxGCJ=yHOFSw2F38=w...@mail.gmail.com > about the status of the various versions of ruby-aws-sdk. > > As I understand the situation

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

Dear David, I am re-reading your mail https://lists.debian.org/CAJg5+Z2th-FNAxLNHb9+xkRz6O1RKb0RFxGCJ=yHOFSw2F38=w...@mail.gmail.com about the status of the various versions of ruby-aws-sdk. As I understand the situation now: - the source/binary package ruby-aws-sdk-core v3, which was blocking

Re: [RFS] ruby-erubi

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 2:54 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote: Hi, I have updated erubi to version 1.9.0 as needed by gitlab, builds fine in a clean chroot+autopkgtests pass. I have pushed changes to team repo here[1]. Needs review and sponsorship [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-erubi

Re: [RFS] ruby-omniauth-github/

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 3:12 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote: Hi, I have updated ruby-omniauth-github/ to 1.4.0 as required by gitlab, build+autopkgtests look fine. I have pushed my changes to team repo here[1]. Needs review and sponsorship. [1]:

Re: [RFS] ruby-task-list

On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 12:44 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote: Hi, I have updated ruby-task-list to version - 2.3.1 as required via gitlab. It builds fine in a clean chroot, and autopkgtests pass as well. I have pushed the changes here[1]. Need Review and sponsorship. [1]:

[RFS] ruby-omniauth-github/

Hi, I have updated ruby-omniauth-github/ to 1.4.0 as required by gitlab, build+autopkgtests look fine. I have pushed my changes to team repo here[1]. Needs review and sponsorship. [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-omniauth-github Thanks and regards Nilesh

[RFS] ruby-erubi

Hi, I have updated erubi to version 1.9.0 as needed by gitlab, builds fine in a clean chroot+autopkgtests pass. I have pushed changes to team repo here[1]. Needs review and sponsorship [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-erubi Thanks and regards Nilesh

Re: gem2deb: salsa-ci.yml vs. .gitattributes [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

Hello, pitching in a bit late, but just to confirm: I've also been using gem2deb version 1.0.4 from debian sid. thanks a bunch for catching the missing files and creating them! I didn't think to check for them when creating the packages since I still don't know very well all that should be

Re: RFS: ruby-tty-screen, ruby-tty-reader and ruby-tty-prompt

Hi, On 20-02-13 02:49:38, Gabriel Filion wrote: > Could someone please review my work to make sure I haven't done > something wrong or forgotten details? I made some changes, see git for details, all uploaded to NEW. Thanks for pushing pdk! Cheers, Georg

RFS: ruby-tty-screen, ruby-tty-reader and ruby-tty-prompt

Hello, I've just sent three more packages to salsa: ruby-tty-screen, ruby-tty-reader and ruby-tty-prompt. Could someone please review my work to make sure I haven't done something wrong or forgotten details? With those three, the list of "easy" packages in my project of getting

Re: debian/salsa-ci.yml created by gem2deb [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

Hi, On 20-02-12 15:40:23, Daniel Leidert wrote: >I think I found the culprit and also fixed it. The .gitattributes file >inside the template directory prevents itself and salsa-ci.yml from >being exported into the gem2deb source and therefor into the package, >where both are

AW:debian/salsa-ci.yml created by gem2deb [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

: Utkarsh Gupta Datum: Mi., 12. Feb. 2020, 01:27An: debian-ruby Betreff: Re: debian/salsa-ci.yml created by gem2deb [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 7:24 PM Georg Faerber wrote:> Works for me (using 0.45), if it doesn't for you, we should investigate,>

Re: debian/salsa-ci.yml created by gem2deb [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 7:24 PM Georg Faerber wrote: > Works for me (using 0.45), if it doesn't for you, we should investigate, > maybe there is a bug lurking, somewhere. I am using the latest version. 1.0.4. Maybe this should help us now \o/ Best, Utkarsh

Re: debian/salsa-ci.yml created by gem2deb [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

On 20-02-11 19:12:45, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > When packaging a new gem, using gem2deb doesn't create a > debian/salsa-ci.yml file. > For instance, gem2deb dry-types. This will not yield a salsa-ci.yml > file, whilst it should. Works for me (using 0.45), if it doesn't for you, we should

Re: gem2deb: salsa-ci.yml vs. .gitattributes [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

Hi Georg, On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 7:10 PM Georg Faerber wrote: > > JFTR: It is also missing debian/.gitattributes - probably for the same > > reason. > > I just did a test: debian/salsa-ci.yml is created correctly, but > debian/.gitattributes is not. I guess the current code doesn't handle >

Re: debian/salsa-ci.yml created by gem2deb [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

Hi Georg, On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:41 PM Georg Faerber wrote: > > Whilst there's debian/salsa-ci.yml in the template, it still doesn't > > seem to work. > > It didn't work for me either. And Antonio is aware of this. > > I'm not aware, mind to elaborate? What does not work, specifically? When

gem2deb: salsa-ci.yml vs. .gitattributes [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

Hi, On 20-02-12 00:50:58, Daniel Leidert wrote: > JFTR: It is also missing debian/.gitattributes - probably for the same > reason. I just did a test: debian/salsa-ci.yml is created correctly, but debian/.gitattributes is not. I guess the current code doesn't handle files with a dot in the

Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer

Am Mittwoch, den 12.02.2020, 05:04 +0530 schrieb Utkarsh Gupta: > Hiya, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 4:51 AM Georg Faerber wrote: > > Another note: Both (and ruby-tty-spinner) lacked debian/salsa-ci.yml. > > That is fixed now. > > > > Did you create all of them with the help of gem2deb? > >

debian/salsa-ci.yml created by gem2deb [was: Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer]

On 20-02-12 05:04:53, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > Whilst there's debian/salsa-ci.yml in the template, it still doesn't > seem to work. > It didn't work for me either. And Antonio is aware of this. I'm not aware, mind to elaborate? What does not work, specifically?

Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer

Hiya, On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 4:51 AM Georg Faerber wrote: > Another note: Both (and ruby-tty-spinner) lacked debian/salsa-ci.yml. > That is fixed now. > > Did you create all of them with the help of gem2deb? Whilst there's debian/salsa-ci.yml in the template, it still doesn't seem to work. It

Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer

Hi, Another note: Both (and ruby-tty-spinner) lacked debian/salsa-ci.yml. That is fixed now. Did you create all of them with the help of gem2deb? Cheers, Georg

Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer

Hi, On 20-02-10 22:01:35, Gabriel Filion wrote: > I've pushed a bit more in my packaging work (and comprehension, thanks > all for the help on the IRC channel!) and I now have two more packages > that are ready: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer. > > Can someone please review my work in the salsa

Re: RFS: ruby-tty-cursor and ruby-tty-spinner

Hi, On 20-02-10 16:41:12, Gabriel Filion wrote: > ah! nice thanks for catching those. I've sent corrections to both > repos. Thanks for your work; ruby-tty-cursor was uploaded by Sebastien, ruby-tty-spinner by me. > I'm not sure that I know what this means. Just to confirm whether my >

RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer

Hello, I've pushed a bit more in my packaging work (and comprehension, thanks all for the help on the IRC channel!) and I now have two more packages that are ready: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer. Can someone please review my work in the salsa repos of the same names? I've had to add a

Re: RFS: ruby-tty-cursor and ruby-tty-spinner

Hi, On 2020-02-10 9:15 a.m., Sebastien Badia wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 11:50:15PM (-0500), Gabriel Filion wrote: >> I've just sent ruby-tty-cursor and ruby-tty-spinner to new projects of >> the same names in salsa. >> >> Could someone please review my work and either notify me if there's

Re: RFS: ruby-tty-cursor and ruby-tty-spinner

On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 11:50:15PM (-0500), Gabriel Filion wrote: > Hello team! > > I've finally started tackling the big pile of dependencies I need to > clear up before getting puppet-development-kit in debian. Smaller bites > will make the problem seem less humongous. > > I've just sent

RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

Hi, Just updated the packaged in salsa. Could any DD review and sponsor the upload ? Thanks in advance, -- David

Re: [RFS] ruby-grape-path-helpers

Hi Nilesh On 04/02/20 12:26 am, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Hi > I updated r > uby-grace-path-helpers > to version 1.2.0 as required by gitlab. It builds in a clean chroot with > autopkgtets passing. I have pushed my changes here[1]. >

Re: [RFS] ruby-octokit

On 26/01/20 6:10 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Hi > I have updated ruby-octokit to version - 4.15.0 . It builds fine on a > clean chroot, is lintian-clean and the autopkgtests pass as well. I > have pushed my changes here: [1]. This update is needed for gitlab. > Needs review and sponsorship. > >

Re: RFS: ruby-kubeclient

On 23/01/20 2:50 pm, Samyak Jain wrote: > Hey, > I've updated the Debian package of the Ruby gems rails-kubeclient. The > package was tested on sbuild and was successfully built. It is also > lintian-clean and autopkgtest passes for the same. I've pushed the > package to the ruby-team repo may be

Re: RFS: ruby-elasticsearch

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:09 pm, Samyak Jain wrote: Hey, I have updated ruby-elasticsearch from 5.0.5 to 6.8.0. The required changes can be found at:https://salsa.debian.org/samyak-jn-guest/ruby-elasticsearch/ The package

[RFS] ruby-grape-path-helpers

Hi I updated r uby-grace-path-helpers to version 1.2.0 as required by gitlab. It builds in a clean chroot with autopkgtets passing. I have pushed my changes here[1]. Needs review and sponsorship. [1]:

[RFS] ruby-task-list

Hi, I have updated ruby-task-list to version - 2.3.1 as required via gitlab. It builds fine in a clean chroot, and autopkgtests pass as well. I have pushed the changes here[1]. Need Review and sponsorship. [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/gi-boi-guest/ruby-task-list Thanks and regards Nilesh

RFS: ruby-elasticsearch

Hey, I have updated ruby-elasticsearch from 5.0.5 to 6.8.0. The required changes can be found at: https://salsa.debian.org/samyak-jn-guest/ruby-elasticsearch/ The package builts fine, and the autopkgtest passes for the same. The d/ch entry includes experimental entry, since it's a major update.

[RFS] ruby-octokit

Hi I have updated ruby-octokit to version - 4.15.0 . It builds fine on a clean chroot, is lintian-clean and the autopkgtests pass as well. I have pushed my changes here: [1]. This update is needed for gitlab. Needs review and sponsorship. [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/gi-boi-guest/ruby-octokit

RFS: ruby-kubeclient

Hey, I've updated the Debian package of the Ruby gems rails-kubeclient. The package was tested on sbuild and was successfully built. It is also lintian-clean and autopkgtest passes for the same. I've pushed the package to the ruby-team repo may be found at:

[RFS] ruby-rails-i18n [5.1.3]

Hi, I have updated ruby-rails-i18n to 5.1.3 for the next release of Diaspora. Build successful in clean chroot and fixed lintian errors. Link: https://salsa.debian.org/abspython-guest/ruby-rails-i18n Needs reviewing and sponsorship. Thanks in advance. Regards, Abhijith Sheheer

RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

Hi, Just updated the packaged in salsa. Could any DD review and sponsor the upload ? Thanks in advance, -- David

Major gem package versions [Was: Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk]

On 08/01/2020 10:20, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:00, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: >> On 07/01/2020 20:49, Pirate Praveen wrote: >>> >>> >>>  On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 01:16, Pirate Praveen >>>  wrote:  ruby-aws-sdk 2 -> 3 is huge change. >>> >>>  It adds 220 new dependencies

Re: [RFS]ruby-get-process-mem[0.2.5]

Hi Abhijith, On 12/01/20 1:25 pm, abhijith sheheer wrote: > Test suite and build was successful. But Rpends failed > Reverse dependencies: ruby-unicorn-worker-killer > I: ruby-unicorn-worker-killer does not declare a DEP-8 test suite. Maybe > try a manual test > I: no reverse build dependencies

Re: RFS: ruby-asset-sync

Hi, On 13/1/20 1:21 AM, Samyak Jain wrote: > > Hey, > > Hi Samyak, > > On 13/1/20 12:24 AM, Samyak Jain wrote: > > Hey, > > > > I've updated the Debian package of the Ruby gems asset_sync. The > package > > was tested on sbuild and was successfully built. It is also

Re: RFS: ruby-asset-sync

Hey, Hi Samyak, > > On 13/1/20 12:24 AM, Samyak Jain wrote: > > Hey, > > > > I've updated the Debian package of the Ruby gems asset_sync. The package > > was tested on sbuild and was successfully built. It is also > > lintian-clean. I've pushed the package to the my personal salsa repo > > which

Re: RFS: ruby-asset-sync

Hi Samyak, On 13/1/20 12:24 AM, Samyak Jain wrote: > Hey, > > I've updated the Debian package of the Ruby gems asset_sync. The package > was tested on sbuild and was successfully built. It is also > lintian-clean. I've pushed the package to the my personal salsa repo > which may be found at: >

RFS: ruby-asset-sync

Hey, I've updated the Debian package of the Ruby gems asset_sync. The package was tested on sbuild and was successfully built. It is also lintian-clean. I've pushed the package to the my personal salsa repo which may be found at: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-asset-sync This update is

Re: [RFS]ruby-get-process-mem[0.2.5]

Hi Abhijith, On Sun, 12 Jan, 2020, 12:35 PM abhijith sheheer, wrote: > Hi, > ruby-get-process-mem have been updated to latest upstream 0.2.5 and builds > in clean chroot. > When you say "build", you mean sbuild or meta/build? In any case, could you run meta/build (if not done yet) and check

Re: [RFS]ruby-pg[1.2.1]

Hi Abhijith, On Sun, 12 Jan, 2020, 12:36 PM abhijith sheheer, wrote: > Thanks Utkarsh. > Should we update the ruby-team/ruby-pg with my commits? > I already have :) Best, Utkarsh >

[RFS]ruby-get-process-mem[0.2.5]

Hi, ruby-get-process-mem have been updated to latest upstream 0.2.5 and builds in clean chroot. Link: https://salsa.debian.org/abspython-guest/ruby-get-process-mem/ Needs review and sponsorship. Thanks in advance. Regards, Abhijith Sheheer

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On 11/1/20 21:09, Pirate Praveen wrote: On ശ, Jan 11, 2020 at 20:46, David Suárez wrote: Well, if you applies this, I dunno why the upload were blocked until upstream CI of gitlab. If gitlab is in experimental, I dunno why it should block any unstable (working and well done packaging)

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ശ, Jan 11, 2020 at 20:46, David Suárez wrote: Well, if you applies this, I dunno why the upload were blocked until upstream CI of gitlab. If gitlab is in experimental, I dunno why it should block any unstable (working and well done packaging) upload. Because we actually run the

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

Hi, On 11/1/20 20:29, Pirate Praveen wrote: On ശ, Jan 11, 2020 at 19:53, David Suárez wrote: Hi, Any update here? Utkarsh was looking at the upstream ci and possibility of fixing the upstream tests. But I have uploaded it now. So now, we have two broken packages:  - ruby-aws-sdk

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ശ, Jan 11, 2020 at 19:53, David Suárez wrote: Hi, Any update here? Utkarsh was looking at the upstream ci and possibility of fixing the upstream tests. But I have uploaded it now. So now, we have two broken packages: - ruby-aws-sdk (experimental version): broken to enduser who

Re: [RFS]ruby-pg[1.2.1]

Hi Abhijith, On 10/01/20 9:42 pm, abhijith sheheer wrote: > Hi, > ruby-pg have been updated to latest upstream 1.2.1 and also fixed uscan > error. > Builds successfully in clean chroot. > Link: https://salsa.debian.org/abspython-guest/ruby-pg > Need review and sponsorship. Uploaded; thanks! \o/

[RFS]ruby-pg[1.2.1]

Hi, ruby-pg have been updated to latest upstream 1.2.1 and also fixed uscan error. Builds successfully in clean chroot. Link: https://salsa.debian.org/abspython-guest/ruby-pg Need review and sponsorship. Thanks in advance. Regards, Abhijith Sheheer

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:00, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: On 07/01/2020 20:49, Pirate Praveen wrote: On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 01:16, Pirate Praveen wrote: ruby-aws-sdk 2 -> 3 is huge change. It adds 220 new dependencies for example. https://rubygems.org/gems/aws-sdk-resources

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On 07/01/2020 20:49, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > > On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 01:16, Pirate Praveen > wrote: >> ruby-aws-sdk 2 -> 3 is huge change. > > It adds 220 new dependencies for example. > > https://rubygems.org/gems/aws-sdk-resources > > gitlab should probably only depend on the bits it

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 01:05, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: The MR has been created upstream. Link here[1]. NOTE: If this pans out the way it should, we'd need to update ruby-parallel, too. Thanks Utkarsh, some tests failed. https://gitlab.com/utkarsh2102/gitlab/-/jobs/396211773 This could be a

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 01:16, Pirate Praveen wrote: ruby-aws-sdk 2 -> 3 is huge change. It adds 220 new dependencies for example. https://rubygems.org/gems/aws-sdk-resources

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ചൊ, Jan 7, 2020 at 20:41, David Suárez wrote: I mean, that it not breaks nothing, not for it was in experimental if not for the version supported in gitlab. From gitlab GemFile: ''gem 'aws-sdk'' Gitlab dit not provides any version, so I think we can bump aws-sdk to v3 too.

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On 6/1/20 20:25, Pirate Praveen wrote: On തി, Jan 6, 2020 at 20:12, David Suárez wrote: Hi, Just updated the packaged in salsa. It gets a new major version (1 -> 2), so they are not compatible. The unique reverse dependency is gitlab (but in experimental version). So it's should not

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >