Hi,
I am back with a new report of SPDX of rubygems in Fedora, almost all
gems were converted automatically
to have LcienseRef-Callaway-* in License: field, review of the gems'
licensing and replacing those with
a proper SPDX license is strongly recommended.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems
Hi,
Recent status of RubyGems SPDX conversion.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 446
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 440
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 299/440
* li
Hi,
Here's the recent report.
Newly, licenses contain LicenseRef-Callaway-*. I have therefore split
package report to 2 parts,
1st part are packages that need attention due to the License field in
RPMs is not valid in neither the legacy Callaway or the
"new" SPDX format, IOW they could not be
Hi all,
end of August is here, and with it a new report for the SPDX rubygems
status.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 446
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 440
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and l
Hi all,
since the last report, a few license mass "auto translations" from
callaway -> SPDX identifier happened,
so we are seeing around 40 rubygems less compared to last report.
Please review your packages if you haven't done so yet and ideally
review whether the license is correct.
Remain
Hi,
Recent report for Ruby SPDX status.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 447
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 441
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 285/441
* license-v
Hi,
New SPDX statistics.
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 448
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 442
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 285/442
* license-validate says they are OK
Hi all
SPDX conversion status for rubygems in Fedora.
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 447
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 442
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 285/442
* lice
Hi all,
we have a new report on current SPDX conversion amount in Rubygems of
Fedora.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 447
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 442
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license
Hi all,
time came for a new SPDX report.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 447
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 442
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 284/442
* license-
Hi,
some time passed and here is new SPDX conversion status report for
Fedora RubyGems.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 447
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 442
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and
Hi all,
another amount of time passed, I come back with a new report on the SPDX
status in Fedora rubygems.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 448
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 443
* Fedora License field and gem2r
Hi all,
I come back with a recent report on Rubygems SPDX status.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 449
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 444
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succee
Hi,
Some time passed yet again, therefore we have a new report on the SPDX
in Fedora rubies.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 449
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 444
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license matc
Hi,
new year edition of how we are doing with SPDX tags in the rubygems
package ecosystem.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 453
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 448
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match
On 1/3/24 11:48, jpro...@redhat.com wrote:
On 1/3/24 11:23, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 02. 01. 24 v 21:50 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
My build succeeded everywhere. Nevertheless, there were
some reports about issues with fibers (e.g.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/200
Hi,
last SPDX status of this year, the next one will be generated in the
first weeks of 2024.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
---
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 455
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 450
* Fedora License field and
Hi all,
back with new report.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 455
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 450
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 289/450
* license
Hi,
another 2 weeks passed so there is updated SPDX status.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 456
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 451
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 2
Hi all,
2 weeks passed and with it comes SPDX status.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 457
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 452
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds
On 10/16/23 13:08, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Additionally, what is the reason for having Faraday 2? It seems
octokit requires Faraday, but version 1 should be fine. I am not sure
about Licensee itself, but on the first look, it seems they are having
some troubles with Faraday 2, but I don't see there
not running yet, but it should ideally run.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244212#c1
Issue upstream:
https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-ruby/issues/2228
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraprojec
Hi all,
SPDX status for 2023-10-05, forgot to send it last thursday.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 458
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 453
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license
Hi,
New report for 2023-09-21.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 460
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 455
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 289/455
* license-validate s
Hi all,
update on the rubygems SPDX status in Fedora
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
~~~
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 460
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 455
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
JFTR the changes were made into a PR
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/158
On 8/16/23 19:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi and very much thank you for looking into this issue.
Dne 10. 08. 23 v 18:24 Jarek Prokop napsal(a):
..snip..
So the pros / cons of this approach currently
Hi,
Another 2 weeks had gone by, I am back with another report.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 460
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 455
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
s: `bundle exec rdoc`
I will try to apply the approach of faking the whole gem directory and
file tree in /usr/share/ruby for RDoc and record my findings.
I am open to discussion, should you want to share your thoughts or ideas
regarding this topic.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
[0]
https://src.fed
Hi all,
I return with a recent report.
Thanks,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 462
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 456
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 290/456
Hi all,
It is July, and we have the first report of the month here.
Thanks,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 461
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 456
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license
Hi all,
2 weeks passed, so here is recent SPDX report.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 469
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 464
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds
Hi all,
Another SPDX status email, this time enhanced by filtering out orphaned
packages suggested by Troy Dawson, thanks!
This count is also reflected in the count in "Action required" field.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 469
* Excluded gems:
rubygem
On 6/7/23 16:55, Troy Dawson wrote:
Hi Jarek,
I see that there are 9 packages listed that are orphaned.
Can we get those removed from the list.
Those should be gone next time we do this. It is a "living" list.
This is not the first time this happened, but before I wasn't collecting
who is th
Hi all,
another Thursday passed, so I am back with fresh report of current SPDX
status of Rubygems.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 471
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 466
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm licen
Hi all,
JFYI, latest Fedora 37 Ruby rebase broke a few Ruby package builds due
to change in the URI gem.
recently I did a rebase for Ruby 3.1.4 to address 2 CVEs among other things.
For one of those CVEs (ReDoS vulnerability in URI [0]), upstream merged
URI gem v0.12.0[1] and later to v0.12.1
Hi all,
I am back with a bit of a different format for authors,
now you have 2 lists, firstly all packages containing the old license
format,
then the second lists lists authors/contributors to the packages.
This was done because the column formatting broke the 100KB barrier with
the last ema
Hi all,
report hot & fresh off of the heap. I have included the suggestion from
last report
to add commit-able contributors as another column.
The owner of the package gets to be in the front, rest, such as groups,
other admins/members
follow, if any.
A positive note, "Action required" drop
Hi all,
I had missed an update 2 weeks ago due to Easter holiday in Czechia
but I return with a fresh report.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 471
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 466
* Fedora License field and gem2r
Hi all,
I come back with another report and a reminder.
The SPDX effort in Fedora has shifted into Phase 2, read what that means
and more on the System Wide Proposal page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 475
* Exclud
Hi all,
Another 2 weeks are gone and I return with a report on the current SPDX
status.
Regards,
Jarek
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 477
* Excluded gems:
rubygem-krb5-auth
rubygem-rgen
rubygem-net-irc
* Total rubygems checked: 472
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and
Hi all,
today's email is going to be a bit longer.
We have reached a branching point in Fedora, with that comes change
proposal for Fedora 39: "SPDX License Phase 2" [0]
This phase is about having the license field in specs all correctly
migrated to SPDX, therefore I am also going to extend
Hi all,
2 weeks have passed, I return with current statistics regarding SPDX for
rubygems.
I was able to get a gem built out of rubygem-morph-cli and
rubygem-asciidoctor tar archives that are in the Fedora lookaside cache.
The remaining 3 gems require gymnastics with Rake or additional
depen
Hi all,
2 weeks have passed, I return with current statistics regarding SPDX for
rubygems.
* Total rubygems in Fedora: 475
* Decreased by 10 since last run
* Total rubygems checked: 470
* Fedora License field and gem2rpm license match and license-validate
succeeds: 284/470
* lic
Uff, these two ^^ should have been retired for ages. Just added them
into this ticket:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11156
But what is the source for this list?
As with previous emails, the source is rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz from
http://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz for
rubygem-xmlparser, GPLv2+ and ( Ruby or GPLv2+ or MIT )
and ( GPLv2+ or Artistic )
rubygem-xmlrpc, Ruby or BSD
rubygem-yard, MIT and (BSD or Ruby)
rubygem-zoom, LGPLv2+
~~~
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
Hi,
I don't have much experience with WASM compilation on Fedora.
There are some examples online running Ruby compiled to WASM.
The most prominent example is TryRuby [0], see source [1].
It seems like they are pulling an NPM package [2] of already compiled
Ruby wasm.
I see some usage of Emscri
BSD
rubygem-websocket-driver, ASL 2.0
rubygem-xmlparser, GPLv2+ and ( Ruby or GPLv2+ or MIT )
and ( GPLv2+ or Artistic )
rubygem-xmlrpc, Ruby or BSD
rubygem-yard, MIT and (BSD or Ruby)
rubygem-zoom, LGPLv2+
~~~
Thank
* license-validate says they are OK SPDX when conjunctions were
converted: 334/485
There were 3 rubygem packages dropped in Fedora, otherwise the stats are
the same.
Regards,
Jarek
On 11/22/22 14:06, Jarek Prokop wrote:
Hi all,
I have fixed up the script a bit and sprinkled some more
On 11/24/22 14:20, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 24. 11. 22 v 13:12 Jarek Prokop napsal(a):
nit regarding the spec license, "GPL-2.0" is not valid SPDX
(according to license-validate at least), however, there is
"GPL-2.0-only" or "GPL-2.0-or-later".
I think that
Hi,
looks great :), I'll comment more inline.
nit regarding the spec license, "GPL-2.0" is not valid SPDX (according
to license-validate at least), however, there is "GPL-2.0-only" or
"GPL-2.0-or-later".
I am maybe coming too soon with this comment, but since we are also on
the SPDX topic in
ons.csv | grep -E "(true|false);0" |
wc -l
337
~~~
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/spdx_rubygems.git/tree/rubygems_try_convert_conjunctions.csv?id=cdbdc41a5ae532df73c76277a939e456214bb0f9
I will follow up with RPM specs from this week later.
Regards,
Jarek
On 11/2
Hi,
I have been working on the validation of Rubygem licenses with the SPDX
format.
all work done so far lives in my fedorapeople space:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/spdx_rubygems.git/tree/
It is WIP, including the scripts. (I got a bit sidetracked with
validating MIT v
Hi,
On 10/27/22 15:14, Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 3:39 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 21. 10. 22 v 13:56 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/10/17 23:24:
Hi again,
Here is yet another version from Friday:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?task
Hi,
Sub-clasing is interesting idea. But that would mean we needed to
provide our own generator.
I am working on a kind of a prototype on this.
Sources with specfile are available here:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/fedora_darkfish.git/
I also created copr repo that con
Hi,
I took a different approach using Vít's script as a base.
the -T could be specified in code, that is subject for more refinement
in the next iteration.
Also, it seems the fonts are symlinked, a `.reject` on the right place
might help with that.
~~~
[vagrant@fedora test]$ cat ./hello.r
The other subthread with Jarek reminded me that one of the options
could be to extract/fork the whole Darkfish generator instead of
monkey patching. But Darkfish is pretty complex. We would probably not
avoided any issues.
Maybe it would be possible to just provide the subclass of Darkfish
Hi,
On 7/20/22 12:28, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Just a few notes from the limited time I spend trying to understand
the approach.
1) The template can't be subpackage of the rubygem-rdoc. It needs to
live in completely separate project to enable us to decouple RDoc
updates from the template updates.
eate
pull requests for the rubygem packages in Pagure.
Regards,
Jarek Prokop
___
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.fedorap
Copying the static files to proper directories and then removing them
would be better in general,
s/removing/symlinking/
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.o
Hi all,
I did some initial work in unbundling the static files and adjusting the
darkfish template that we can then copy out and use for generating
Fedora's HTML documentation.
For this I used rubygem-rdoc and rdoc v6.4.0 for protyping.
You can check the spec at:
https://src.fedoraproject.o
On 6/28/22 09:54, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27. 06. 22 v 19:51 Jarek Prokop napsal(a):
Hi,
since it came up in the package review I took a closer look on the
state and possibilities.
On 6/27/22 17:47, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27. 06. 22 v 13:21 Benson Muite napsal(a):
Hi Pavel,
Thanks. Is
Hi,
since it came up in the package review I took a closer look on the state
and possibilities.
On 6/27/22 17:47, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27. 06. 22 v 13:21 Benson Muite napsal(a):
Hi Pavel,
Thanks. Is it also worth encouraging packaging of Ri documentation?
These are very comandline frien
Hi all,
I've merged the side-tag into rawhide:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4ef1a7470
Thanks for help with this update.
Regards,
Jarek
___
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
On 1/14/22 12:40, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Hello, all:
Jarek Prokop wrote on 2022/01/13 2:17:
Hi,
On 1/12/22 12:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi Jarek,
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-aruba/pull-request/2
Considering the Aruba ticket ^^, I am not sure if every party
understands that you
Hi,
On 1/12/22 12:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi Jarek,
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-aruba/pull-request/2
Considering the Aruba ticket ^^, I am not sure if every party
understands that you are testing the changes in the side-tag (am I
correct, right?), you are unspecifically refer
Hi all,
Pavel and I have been working bringing the new rubygem-cucumber 7.1.0
into Fedora.
We have working updates available in a copr repo [0] that you can try
out (as to "how", see the proposal [1]).
There are some new dependencies (and renames) that need a review done in
order
to get t
66 matches
Mail list logo
