[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2012-02-13 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #36 from Mo Morsi 2012-02-13 12:53:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #35) > Is it possible to get this in the EL6 EPEL

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2012-02-08 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Don Hoover changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-19 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-19 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-18 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #33 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-15 16:00:00 EDT --- Ah. Learn something new every day. Unretired, go ahead and take it

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #32 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2011-07-15 15:55:27 EDT --- Nope. de facto policy from a long time ago is that cvsa

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #30 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-15 11:36:11 EDT --- I do not see an unretire button, perhaps because you have admin rights

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-15 11:03:54 EDT --- When logged into pkgdb via my FAS account, and I'm at: https://admi

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #28 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-15 10:51:44 EDT --- Hrm I'm not seeing the option to do so via the pkgdb web interface, co

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #27 from Jon Ciesla 2011-07-15 10:42:31 EDT --- Actually you may just be able to go into pkgdb and unretire now, I k

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #26 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-15 10:28:20 EDT --- rel-eng trac ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4822 Th

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-07 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #23 from Vít Ondruch 2011-07-07 04:00:36 EDT --- I am afraid that installing single system gem will fetch also MRI

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-07 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #22 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-07 03:34:42 EDT --- I have never checked this at runtime. But it surely uses th

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-07 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #21 from Vít Ondruch 2011-07-07 03:24:01 EDT --- Is JRuby really ready to use system gems, such as rubygem-rake? -

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #19 from Mo Morsi 2011-07-06 20:50:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) > Remaining issues: > * Please install jrub

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-07-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #18 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-07-06 05:41:16 EDT --- === Issues === 1. Install in /usr/share instead of /usr/lib

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-06-09 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 705106, which changed state. Bug 705106 Summary: Review Request: snakeyaml - YAML parser and emitter f

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-06-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #17 from Mo Morsi 2011-06-06 17:31:12 EDT --- OK the aforementioned JRuby dependency updates have been pushed to raw

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-06-04 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #16 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-06-04 09:04:41 EDT --- Can we get all these builds pushed to rawhide so I can test

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-06-02 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-05-20 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #14 from Mo Morsi 2011-05-20 14:16:30 EDT --- I'll get back to this (hopefully for the last time :-p) next week --

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-05-10 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #13 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-05-10 14:51:30 EDT --- Ping, are we moving here? -- Configure bugmail: https://b

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-04-20 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #12 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-04-20 08:55:41 EDT --- FWIW, JRuby 1.6.1 is out -- Configure bugmail: https://bu

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-03-30 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 691979, which changed state. Bug 691979 Summary: Update Request: Update felix-osgi-core to version to

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-03-29 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-03-29 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-03-18 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #11 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-03-18 10:40:10 EDT --- Incidently JRuby 1.6.0 was released a few days ago. Would y

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-03-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #10 from Mo Morsi 2011-03-15 12:59:31 EDT --- OK upstream got back to me and I think I integrated their fix in in a

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2011-01-26 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #9 from Mohammed Morsi 2011-01-26 11:45:48 EST --- Sorry for the delay folks. I have updated the JRuby package (it

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-12-20 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-12-06 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #8 from Mohammed Morsi 2010-12-06 13:51:41 EST --- Thanks for the review. Updated the package SPEC URL: http://mo.

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-12-05 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov 2010-12-05 09:18:54 EST --- Package Review == Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Pr

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-12-05 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-12-02 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 561462, which changed state. Bug 561462 Summary: Review Request: jaffl - Java Abstracted Foreign Funct

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-10-26 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #4 from Mohammed Morsi 2010-10-26 12:44:41 EDT --- The jaffl Fedora submission has been updated, and Bytelist and j

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-10-26 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 646641, which changed state. Bug 646641 Summary: Update Request: Update bytelist to latest upstream re

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-10-25 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Mohammed Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-09-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 --- Comment #2 from Mohammed Morsi 2010-09-15 16:46:12 EDT --- Would say the chances are good. The original submission worked 1

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-09-15 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Jason Smith changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-05-18 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 561459, which changed state. Bug 561459 Summary: Review Request: jgrapht - A free Java graph library t

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-05-13 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 ro...@nibor.org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-05-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 561452, which changed state. Bug 561452 Summary: Review Request: yydebug - Supports tracing and animat

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-03-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 561482, which changed state. Bug 561482 Summary: Review Request: joni - Java port of Oniguruma regexp

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-02-11 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 560169, which changed state. Bug 560169 Summary: Review Request: bytelist - A java library for lists o

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-02-11 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 560170, which changed state. Bug 560170 Summary: Review Request: jcodings - Java-based codings helper

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-02-04 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-02-04 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 561473, which changed state. Bug 561473 Summary: Review Request: bytelist - A java library for lists o

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-02-04 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Bug 561484 depends on bug 561464, which changed state. Bug 561464 Summary: Review Request: jcodings - Java Libraries for Ruby St

[Bug 561484] Review Request: jruby - Pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter

2010-02-03 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561484 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added --