Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

I have submitted Bodhi update to have the side tag merged: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-215314a086 Vít Dne 06. 01. 21 v 11:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi everybody, So here we go. I have asked for side tag for Ruby 3.0 rebuild: ~~~ $ fedpkg request-side-tag Side tag

Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

Dne 08. 01. 21 v 10:37 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 07. 01. 21 v 15:14 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): 5    rubygem-raindrops-0.13.0-18.fc33.src.rpm There seems to be upstream fix to this: https://yhbt.net/raindrops.git/commit/lib?id=85486f9af18e4f249f23253e3b251e685b323912 But since

Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

Dne 07. 01. 21 v 15:14 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2021/01/07 22:41: Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2021/01/07 16:54: Current leftovers (wrt library dependency issue): $ dnf repoquery --repo=koji-ruby30 --qf '%{sourcerpm}' --whatrequires "libruby.so.2.7()(64bit)" | cat -n

Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

Dne 07. 01. 21 v 8:54 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): 1    kf5-kross-interpreters-20.08.3-1.fc34.src.rpm build fails: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59090361 /builddir/build/BUILD/kross-interpreters-20.08.3/ruby/rubyinterpreter.cpp:69:5: error: 'rb_set_safe_level' was not

Re: Ruby 3.0 change proposal

Dne 07. 01. 21 v 11:20 Jun Aruga napsal(a): Upgrade/compatibility impact Is it better to mention about the `%{gem_plugin}` macro for the file to %files section to the Upgrade/compatibility impact section if it is encouraged to add it to rubygem- packages?

Re: Ruby 3.0 change proposal

Dne 07. 01. 21 v 11:28 Jun Aruga napsal(a): I think we can add not only the upstream github's NEWS.md but also the ruby-lang's release note too, as obviously the Fedora wiki page's content is copied from the upstream page. https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2020/12/25/ruby-3-0-0-released/ Though

Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

Dne 07. 01. 21 v 9:17 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 07. 01. 21 v 6:19 Pavel Valena napsal(a):    rubygem-snmp - builds ok This one ^^ is noarch and should not have devepnedncy on ruby-devel IMO. Should not need rebuild. I have rather updated the package. Vít

Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

Dne 07. 01. 21 v 6:19 Pavel Valena napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 7:23:36 PM Subject: Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild The PR was merged and should be available in the side tag. Shou

Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

) The scratch-builds themselves can be found here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?view=toplevel=pvalena=all=all=-id Regards, Pavel Vít Dne 06. 01. 21 v 14:30 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 06. 01. 21 v 14:14 Pavel Valena napsal(a): One new change in Ruby 3.0 is `%{gem_dir

Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

Dne 07. 01. 21 v 8:54 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): = 4    rubygem-debug_inspector-0.0.3-11.fc33.src.rpm build fails: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59090797 current directory:

Re: Ruby 3.0 - Mass rebuild

Dne 06. 01. 21 v 14:14 Pavel Valena napsal(a): One new change in Ruby 3.0 is `%{gem_dir}/plugins` directory, which now contains are rubygems plugins to load. Example change: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-yard/pull-request/1#_2__64 Good catch. I have completely missed that.

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi and happy new year! So Ruby 3.0 were released over Christmas and therefore I closed the old PR and created a new one, which should be the final version: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/75 The scratch build is running here:

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 22. 12. 20 v 13:16 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi everybody, Here is another snapshot build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58026964 All changes are in private-ruby-3.0 branch. I think I should be able to prepare one more snapshot tomorrow and that should be it prior

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 23. 12. 20 v 11:47 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 23. 12. 20 v 11:06 Pavel Valena napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 1:16:12 PM Subject: Re: Ruby 3.0 Hi everybody, Here is another snap

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 23. 12. 20 v 11:06 Pavel Valena napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 1:16:12 PM Subject: Re: Ruby 3.0 Hi everybody, Here is another snapshot build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koj

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi everybody, Here is another snapshot build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58026964 All changes are in private-ruby-3.0 branch. I think I should be able to prepare one more snapshot tomorrow and that should be it prior Ruby 3.0 release. This is the last change to

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi everybody, The ruby 3.0.0.rc1 was released over the weekend, so here is the scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57950773 And I already updated to the latest snapshot. The build is runnig here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57955859 I

Re: Ruby 3.0

d software. Jarek [0] https://github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/a9649b4f18a9059de3161906c9c6e95ec06fdef9/lib/sinatra/base.rb#L1827 On 16/12/2020 18:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi, Another snapshot is available in private-ruby-3.0 branch and the build is running here: FYI it's not synced with PR#70. If

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi, Another snapshot is available in private-ruby-3.0 branch and the build is running here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57585626 Most notable change is removal of WEBRick from Ruby. I am not completely sure how much disruption this could cause in Fedora. I wonder if

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi everybody, Here is yet another update: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56776529 The changes are available in private-ruby-3.0 branch, but nothing really stands out. Please give a test and let me know should you find any issue. Thx Vít

Ruby 3.0 change proposal

Hi Rubyists, The release of Ruby 3.0 is coming close and to be ready for rebuild after Christmas, I have submitted the Ruby 3.0 change proposal [1]. It is already in `ChangeReadyForWrangler` state, since I don't expect any controversy. But anyway, please review and let me know if you have any

Re: Ruby 3.0

like just simply overriding `rbconfig.rb` file in `%install` for ruby. Also I'm not sure what would be the implications? (Apart from those test packages building again.) Vít Dne 20. 11. 20 v 1:59 Pavel Valena napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 20. 11. 20 v 16:21 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 20. 11. 20 v 15:07 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, Another ~2 weeks passed, so here is yet another updated Ruby 3.0 snapshot. The changes are available here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/70 And the build is running

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 20. 11. 20 v 15:07 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, Another ~2 weeks passed, so here is yet another updated Ruby 3.0 snapshot. The changes are available here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/70 And the build is running here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi, Another ~2 weeks passed, so here is yet another updated Ruby 3.0 snapshot. The changes are available here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/70 And the build is running here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55942586 I have not noticed anything

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 19. 11. 20 v 18:22 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 19. 11. 20 v 16:52 Jun Aruga napsal(a): This kind of commits does not make me happy :( While the intention is good, they don't take into consideration any distribution. It is tailored to the old fashion way of "download tarball &

Re: Ruby 3.0

What if we provided `%{ruby_vendorlibdir}/rbconfig.rb`, which would fix the `CXX` as well as the rhbz#1284684? WDYT? Vít Dne 20. 11. 20 v 1:59 Pavel Valena napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Thursday, November

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 19. 11. 20 v 16:52 Jun Aruga napsal(a): This kind of commits does not make me happy :( While the intention is good, they don't take into consideration any distribution. It is tailored to the old fashion way of "download tarball & configure & make & make install", everything runs on single

Re: Ruby 3.0

@Pavel, could you please try to add `%{set_build_flags}` call prior calling the `%gem_install`? That sets the `CXX` env variable. Does it help? Vít So CONFIG["CXX"] is not yet set ( in /usr/lib64/ruby/rbconfig.rb on x86_64) (see:

Re: Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping

Dne 11. 11. 20 v 9:35 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Anyway, thinking about this boostrap project over night and thinking about this question, I think that my next step should be trying to use the miniruby after `make clean`, which should bring the tarball content closer to upstream repository

Gem diffs

Not sure if anybody noticed the "Review changes" link of the Rubygem.org, but this is the example: https://my.diffend.io/gems/gem2rpm/1.0.0/1.0.1 It seems quite handy to what we do. Vít OpenPGP_0x0CE09EE79917B87C.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description:

Re: asciidoctor-diagram missing from Fedora

(a): Hi Vit, On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 09:54, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 13. 11. 20 v 17:46 Christopher Brown napsal(a): Hi folks, I've got a working build of asciidoctor-diagram ready for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?i

Re: asciidoctor-diagram missing from Fedora

Dne 13. 11. 20 v 17:46 Christopher Brown napsal(a): Hi folks, I've got a working build of asciidoctor-diagram ready for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897619 Spec file:

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 13. 11. 20 v 22:18 Pavel Valena napsal(a): Additionally, 'st.h' is missing for rubygem-ruby-libvirt: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/1768458 gcc -I. -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I. -DRUBY_EXTCONF_H=\"extconf.h\"-fPIC -O2 -flto=auto

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 13. 11. 20 v 11:25 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2020/11/13 19:18: Vít Ondruch wrote on 2020/11/13 17:46: Dne 13. 11. 20 v 3:56 Pavel Valena napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Pavel Valena" To: "Dan Čermák" Cc: "Ruby SIG mail

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 13. 11. 20 v 3:56 Pavel Valena napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Pavel Valena" To: "Dan Čermák" Cc: "Ruby SIG mailing list" Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 8:30:25 PM Subject: Re: Ruby 3.0 - Original Message ----- From: "Dan Čermá

Re: Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping

Dne 11. 11. 20 v 3:19 Pavel Valena napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:19:38 PM Subject: Re: Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping Wow, it has been year since I started this th

Re: Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping

and especially in suggestions for improvement. Vít Dne 20. 12. 19 v 17:26 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi all, Ruby upstream is implementing more and more stuff directly in Ruby. We already had issues, that build of Ruby required Ruby when we did some modifications [1]. In subsequent ticket, one of Ruby c

Orphaned rubygem-json_pure

Hello, I have removed dependencies on rubygem-json_pure from rubygem-morph-cli and rubygem-multi_json, therefore nothing else depended on rubygem-json_pure. There is no real need for rubzgem-json_pure in Fedora, since jruby is long gone and ruby can use the binary rubygem-json, which is more

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi all, Here is once again freshly updated Ruby. The changes are available here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/70 and you can find the scratch build in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=54978639 From the notable changes, there is ongoing effort

Re: Fwd: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

for make. Vít Dne 05. 11. 20 v 14:48 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Reading this proposal, I wonder, if rubygems should grow some (weak) dependency on Make? Historically, that was not good idea, because the only option was hard dependency, which would be overkill. But since we have weak dependenci

Fwd: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

Reading this proposal, I wonder, if rubygems should grow some (weak) dependency on Make? Historically, that was not good idea, because the only option was hard dependency, which would be overkill. But since we have weak dependencies already for some time, maybe we could consider this. This

Re: asciidoctor-diagram missing from Fedora

aintenance of that number of packages right now unless anyone else is interested in sharing the work? On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 16:52, Vít Ondruch mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: When we tried to get ascii_binder into Fedora, we get this far with a

Re: asciidoctor-diagram missing from Fedora

When we tried to get ascii_binder into Fedora, we get this far with asciidoctor-diagram. https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/jackorp/public_git/rubygem-asciidoctor-diagram.git/tree/rubygem-asciidoctor-diagram.spec But we rather avoided the dependency in ascii_binder for the time being:

Re: Ruby SIG introduction

Dne 27. 10. 20 v 13:19 Christopher Brown napsal(a): Hi folks, I joined this mailing list a while back and maintain the asciidoctor-pdf package along with a number of rubygem dependencies. Thanks Vit for sponsoring me. You are welcome. Thank you for taking care about those packages. They

Re: prawn-svg test suite

Actually that is quite common and the remedy is probably what Dan suggested. But you can do `rspec -rprawn-svg spec` to fix this from command line instead of modifying the source code. Vít Dne 27. 10. 20 v 0:37 Dan Allen napsal(a): The lines you commented out were the ones that were

Re: Ruby 3.0

Dne 13. 10. 20 v 14:29 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Pavel Valena wrote on 2020/10/13 21:00: >> - Original Message - >>> From: "Vít Ondruch" >>> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org >>> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 1:52:07 PM >>> Subje

Re: Ruby 2.7.2/3.0.0 rebasing

Dne 05. 10. 20 v 18:00 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > BTW, it wold be probably nice to include this patch: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884728 > > > Vít > > > Dne 05. 10. 20 v 17:55 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> I just started to work towards Ru

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi all, Another update to the most recent version of Ruby 3.0 is here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/70 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53075655 The main difference is RubyGems patch fixing issues with build of rubygem- packages pvalena encountered in

Re: Ruby 3.0

Hi all, After quite long hiatus, I am back with preview of next Ruby, which seems to be Ruby 3.0. Therefore I have closed the original PR and opened new one: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/70 From private-ruby-3.0 branch, which is branched from private-ruby-2.8 branch. The

Re: Ruby 2.7.2/3.0.0 rebasing

BTW, it wold be probably nice to include this patch: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884728 Vít Dne 05. 10. 20 v 17:55 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > I just started to work towards Ruby 3.0.0-preview1. I'd appreciate if > somebody can take about Ruby 2.7.2 rebases. > > >

Re: Ruby 2.7.2/3.0.0 rebasing

I just started to work towards Ruby 3.0.0-preview1. I'd appreciate if somebody can take about Ruby 2.7.2 rebases. Vít Dne 05. 10. 20 v 17:38 Jun Aruga napsal(a): > Is anyone working to rebase Ruby 2.7.2 and 3.0.0? > > Ruby 2.7.2 >

Re: ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3

Dne 01. 10. 20 v 20:21 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> From: "Vít Ondruch" >> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:02:02 PM >> Subject: Re: ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3 >

Re: ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3

Dne 01. 10. 20 v 11:47 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> From: "Vít Ondruch" >> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 11:31:10 AM >> Subject: Re: ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3 >&g

Re: Ruby 2.7 module build failures

From the detailed description, I'd say these are not exceptional issues. They happen from time to time. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16492 I see you have already commented on the ticket, so you could have remember :) Vít Dne 25. 05. 20 v 17:16 Jun Aruga napsal(a): > I tried to run the

Re: Retired "rubygems" package

"rubygems" package. > It's a legacy of old Ruby that does not bundle rubygem in it. > But I like that if you want to retire this kind of key package, just > share us what you will do on this mailing-list, before your work to > retire. > Then I am fine. > > Jun > > On Mo

Re: Help needed: rspec errors in package

~~~ 11) Asciidoctor::PDF::Converter - Image Remote Cache should cache remote image if cache-uri document attribute is set Failure/Error: Helpers.require_library 'open-uri/cached', 'open-uri-cached' unless defined? ::OpenURI::Cache LoadError: asciidoctor: FAILED: required

Re: Help needed: rspec errors in package

Dne 06. 05. 20 v 12:15 Dan Allen napsal(a): > > > @Vit Ondruch - if you have any idea > on why it can't find the binary path, that would be good, am I > missing a requires on itself or some such? > > > That would be a better question to ask me, given I

Re: Help needed: rspec errors in package

But Prawn's test suite is enforcing old pdf-reader 1.4.1 ... Vít Dne 06. 05. 20 v 11:58 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > That works on Fedora Rawhide if this is the expected output: > > ~~~ > > $ ruby -e " > require 'prawn' > require 'pdf/reader' > r

Re: Help needed: rspec errors in package

. A PDF generated using Prawn 2.2.2 w/ pdf-core 0.8.1 > cannot be read by PDF::Reader. It says there's a syntax error. > > Syntax Error (221557): Arg #0 to 'Tf' operator is wrong type (string) > Syntax Error (221565): No font in show > > Best Regards, > >

Re: Help needed: rspec errors in package

Dan, thx for looking into this. Do you have more details? Is there some patch we need to add on top of Prawn to fix this? I am asking because I am not sure there is easy way do revert the pdf-core update (we can always bump epoch, but this sucks for other reasons). Vít Dne 06. 05. 20 v 10:31

Re: Help needed: rspec errors in package

Hi Chris, I think that part of the issues is that upstream is very likely using Bundler whereas you are running the test suite without it. This has its own set of pros and cons. For Fedora, the main benefit of running test suite without using Bundler is reduced amount of dependencies. For

Re: ActiveSupport fix for TZInfo 2.0 + Ruby 2.7

Obviously, I have missed the most important thing to relax the TZInfo dependency :facepalm: I'll fix it shortly. Vít Dne 16. 04. 20 v 14:18 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi everybody, > > Finally, I have find some spare cycles to fix ActiveSupport to be > compatible with TZInfo 2.0 a

Re: Self Introduction

Dne 11. 04. 20 v 6:43 Benson Muite napsal(a): > Hi, > > Thanks for making Ruby on Fedora a good experience. Looking forward to > contributing to this group. Thank you for your kind words. Should you need any help with Ruby related issues, please don't be afraid to speak up here. Vít > >

Ruby 2.7.1

Hi all, I have just submitted Ruby 2.7.1 update for F32: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8772675856 However, I would appreciate, if somebody can take care about the older Fedora releases, otherwise I won't fix the Rawhide ever  Vít

Re: FTBFS's: cannot load such file - racc/*

should be similar to upstream. Please test the PR. Mainly, I am interested in testing of all possible upgrade scenarios. I am not really sure what might break. Thx Vít Dne 10. 03. 20 v 18:46 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> From: "Vít Ondruch&quo

Re: FTBFS's: cannot load such file - racc/*

Dne 10. 02. 20 v 16:49 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > I encourage everybody to read the following discussion: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-racc/pull-request/1 > > It might result in significant changes to a way we (un)bundle gems from > Ruby. I am really considerin

Re: Ruby 2.8

feedback is welcome. Vít Dne 24. 02. 20 v 16:26 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi everybody, > > I started early this time and therefore, there is already PR with > changes for upcoming Ruby version: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/55 > > and the b

Re: Unexpected files included in rubygem doc packages

Dne 25. 02. 20 v 0:18 Troy Dawson napsal(a): > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:55 PM Breno Brand Fernandes > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I had an issue today with a package I submitted to code review [1]. >> >> The reviewer pointed out that I was shipping font files instead of requiring >> them. >> And,

Ruby 2.8

Hi everybody, I started early this time and therefore, there is already PR with changes for upcoming Ruby version: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/55 and the build should be available (if succeeds) here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41848663 So far,

Re: ruby-sig Introduction email

Hi David, Dne 18. 02. 20 v 12:31 David Kirwan napsal(a): > Hi all, > > My name is David Kirwan, I'm a software engineer in Red Hat based out > of Waterford in the South East of Ireland. So far in Red Hat I've > worked in releng/ops/devops and more recently now engineering teams. > > Ruby is my go

Re: Question about rubyforge related packages

Dne 11. 02. 20 v 16:01 Troy Dawson napsal(a): > Hi, > rubygem-rubyforge was dropped back in November with "rubyforge is dead > long ago, retiring (mtasaka, 20191105)" > I'm ok with that. > I have a package that was part of rubyforge, rubygem-ci_reporter. Not sure what do you mean by this? Do

Re: Empty %files debugsourcefiles.list rpmbuild rubygem packages

Dne 07. 02. 20 v 22:34 Breno Brand Fernandes napsal(a): > Hi all, > > I had issues building some rubygem packages with rpmbuild. > E.g. rubygem-redcarpet[1]. > > During my tests, I am using the spec file from the master branch. > > Using mock instead (of rpmbuild), the issue doesn't happen.

Ruby FTBFS due GCC10

Just FYI, Ruby FTBFS in Rawhide due to GCC10: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795633 therefore some changes with regard to Racc are pending for build in dist-git ... Vít ___ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: rubygem-openssl changes in rawhide

-ssh/blob/master/f/rubygem-net-ssh.spec#_38 IOW the solution could be to pre-load net-ssh gem. May be we should even consider to use Bundler to execute the test suite, because that would pre-load the dependencies from the vagrant.gemspec. Vít Dne 28. 01. 20 v 12:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >

Re: rubygem-openssl changes in rawhide

I think you focus on wrong problem. Of course the code construction in OpenSSL is weird: ~~~     # Deprecated.     #     # This class is only provided for backwards compatibility.     # Use OpenSSL::Cipher.     class Cipher < Cipher; end     deprecate_constant :Cipher ~~~ But you should

Re: Ruby 2.7 - Mass rebuild

. 20 v 18:04 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > > Dne 18. 01. 20 v 7:33 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): >> >>     15    rubygem-thin-1.7.2-11.fc31.src.rpm >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40654299 >> One test failure, I don't know well. >> Failures

Re: Ruby 2.7 - Mass rebuild

Dne 18. 01. 20 v 7:33 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > >     15    rubygem-thin-1.7.2-11.fc31.src.rpm > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40654299 > One test failure, I don't know well. > Failures: >   1) Thin::Server should set lower maximum_connections size when too > large >

Re: Ruby 2.7 - Mass rebuild

Dne 21. 01. 20 v 0:29 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> From: "Mamoru TASAKA" >> To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 12:37:18 PM >> Subject: Re: Ruby 2.7 - Mass rebuild >> >> Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2020/01/18 15:33: >>> Thank you (and

Re: Ruby 2.7 - Mass rebuild

Dne 21. 01. 20 v 1:58 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Vít Ondruch wrote on 2020/01/20 22:24: >> >> Dne 20. 01. 20 v 14:02 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >>> Hi Mamoru, >>> >>> >>> Dne 20. 01. 20 v 12:37 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): >>>> Mamoru TASAKA

Re: Ruby 2.7 - Mass rebuild

Dne 20. 01. 20 v 14:02 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi Mamoru, > > > Dne 20. 01. 20 v 12:37 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): >> Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2020/01/18 15:33: >>> Thank you (and thanks to other people) for excellent works to bring >>> ruby 2.7 into Fedora 32. A

Re: Ruby 2.7 - Mass rebuild

Hi Mamoru, Dne 20. 01. 20 v 12:37 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2020/01/18 15:33: >> >> Thank you (and thanks to other people) for excellent works to bring >> ruby 2.7 into Fedora 32. As Vít says, the rebuilt packages can be >> seen on: >>

Ruby 2.7 - Mass rebuild

Hi everybody, This years schedule does not give us too much freedom, because the Fedora mass rebuild is scheduled for the 22nd of January, which is in a few days. There are also some concerns with keyword arguments, but since I have no idea how problematic this might be, I decided to give it a

Re: Ruby 2.7

Dne 08. 01. 20 v 13:33 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi again, > > So here I am again with updated .spec file [1] and related scratch build > [2]. Here are few remarks, because as it usually happens, the biggest > breakages are introduced shortly prior release. > >

Re: Ruby 2.7

Dne 10. 01. 20 v 18:24 Jun Aruga napsal(a): >>> Perhaps, this time, may we be able to wait for the new release Ruby >>> 2.7.1 to release Ruby 2.7 on Fedora? >>> How do you think? >> Hello, >> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong but the enhancements are adding functionality >> (feature?) to be used

Re: Ruby 2.7

Hi again, So here I am again with updated .spec file [1] and related scratch build [2]. Here are few remarks, because as it usually happens, the biggest breakages are introduced shortly prior release. 1) The biggest hurdle is an integration of ABRT handler. For long time, we were using patches,

Re: Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping

Dne 02. 01. 20 v 12:06 Jun Aruga napsal(a): >> With recent changes, such as [3], I am afraid that the day has come. > It seems that the day came on Ruby 2.7.0, right? Ruby 2.7.0 includes > the commit [3]. > >> Thoughts? >> On the positive side, 1(2) would allow us to stay better in line with >>

Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping

Hi all, Ruby upstream is implementing more and more stuff directly in Ruby. We already had issues, that build of Ruby required Ruby when we did some modifications [1]. In subsequent ticket, one of Ruby committers said [2]: > ... snip ... > BASERUBY is already a build requirement > ... snip ... >

Re: Ruby 2.7

You can download the SRPM from Koji to save you some troubles: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39474762 Vít Dne 13. 12. 19 v 16:28 Jun Aruga napsal(a): >> Did you upload your updated *.patch files to the remote repository? > Sorry maybe my mistake. My

Ruby 2.7 change proposal

Hi Rubyists, The release of Ruby 2.7 is coming close and to be ready for rebuild after Christmas, I have submitted the Ruby 2.7 change proposal [1]. It is already in `ChangeReadyForWrangler` state, since I don't expect any controversy. But anyway, please review and let me know if you have any

Re: Ruby 2.7

Hi everybody, Yet another update of Ruby 2.7 is available in dist-git and the scratch build is running in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39474761 I don't thing there was anything major from packagin POV. Anyway, please let me know if you encounter any issues. Best,

Re: Rspec 3.9.0

Dne 04. 12. 19 v 17:50 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > Currently, I've experimentally built Rspec 3.9, and I'm trying to enable > tests, and I'm getting: > It seems that you have omitted the important part of the message. Vít ___ ruby-sig mailing list --

Re: Ruby 2.7

Hi everybody, I have update Ruby 2.7 again. The .spec is available in dist-git and the scratch build is here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39204662 There are nothing major, except a StdLib ongoing gemification. As always, feedback is welcome. Vít

Re: Ruby 2.7

Hi all, I updated the Ruby 2.7 package again. All the changes can be found in #48 and here is scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37685741 As always, any feedback is welcome. Vít Dne 04. 09. 19 v 17:12 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi again, > > I hav

Re: Ruby 2.7

Hi again, I have updated the .spec file to the newer release. You can see all the changes in the #48 and the recent scratch build is available here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37455859 Please give it a test. Any feedback is welcome. Vít Dne 16. 07. 19 v 14:41 Vít

Retired "rubygems" package

Hi all, The independent "rubygems" package was retired, because it FTBFS already for some while: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygems/c/366607586d95b505277165fce54d9494650e8b91?branch=master Now I wonder, do we care? Should I unretire it while there is a chance to do it without review or

Ruby 2.7

Hi everybody, I have create PR with .spec file, which will eventually become Ruby 2.7 package in Fedora some time around beginning of next year: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/48 and this is associated scratch build:

Re: Reproducible builds?

Dne 19. 06. 19 v 16:49 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:44 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> Recently, there was opened this ticket: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719647 >> >> In short, there are so

Reproducible builds?

Hi everybody, Recently, there was opened this ticket: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719647 In short, there are some issues with -doc noarch subpackages, which are not precisely identical coming from different builders, due to embedded timestamps. As it turns out, there is

Re: Draft for new Ruby SIG wiki page

Hi Jarek and all, Thank you for work on the proposal. I went ahead and did a few modifications. You can see them here: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=SIGs%2FRuby=revision=543753=530792 Mainly, I put into the place the "Join the Ruby SIG" chapter and added the reference to the SIG

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >