Bringing GitLab in Fedora
by Axilleas Pipinellis
Hello dear list!
I am applying for this year's GSOC [0] and I would like to contribute by
bringing GitLab [1][2] in Fedora. For those that don't already know
GitLab, it is a Self hosted Git management software written on Ruby on
Rails, pretty much like github's interface (you can try a demo here [3]).
It is a ruby app with lots of dependencies and I think this is a great
opportunity to extend the list of packaged gems supported by Fedora. Let
alone the fact that with the momentum GitLab has gained (it is in the
top 50 most popular open source projects on github) it would be an asset
if Fedora had this packaged. Also, the core developer was more than
willing to help with the process [4].
I could use any help needed on packaging. I have already exchanged a
couple of mails with Vit Ondruch and he pointed me to a direction. In
fact I am in the middle of reading all the related stuff from the wiki.
So what are your thoughts? Any guidance, ideas or insights are very much
appreciated!
Regards,
Axilleas
PS. There is also the thought of deploying GitLab to git repositories on
fedorahosted.org, but that's irrelevant to this list.
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GSOC_2013
[1] http://gitlab.org
[2] https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq
[3] http://demo.gitlabhq.com/
[4] https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/gitlabhq/SQMDi-yyXmU
10 years, 8 months
Policy re Gems that don't have RPMs yet?
by Philip Rhoades
People,
A while ago I posted a note on the Devise forum asking if anyone was
going to build an RPM for Fedora but didn't get any responses at all -
no-one even viewed the post! What happens with Gems in this category?
Am I supposed to do anything? Add a request somewhere? Use the Gem
instead of an RPM while I wait for someone to do the work for creating
the RPM? Should I bite the bullet and see how to produce the RPM
myself?
Regards,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au
10 years, 10 months
package aliases or an alternative package name for a Ruby gem
by Dan Allen
Is it possible to have an alias to a rubygem rpm or are there exceptions to
the rule that it must have the rubygem- prefix.
I ask in relation to two packages.
The first is rubygem-asciidoctor.
This package provides both a Ruby library and a system executable. It's a
drop-in replacement for the asciidoc package (in most common cases). People
are expecting to be able to install an RPM named "asciidoctor", just a few
characters extra from "asciidoc" and get the RPM. Instead, they have to be
aware it's a rubygem and type "rubygem-asciidoctor". Is it possible to have
an alias package in this case like in Debian where it will install
rubygem-asciidoctor when you request asciidoctor?
The second case is a new package I'm submitting named Awestruct. This is
not a Ruby library at all, but strictly a system executable. Do I have to
name it "rubygem-awestruct" or can I name it simply "awestruct".
Thanks,
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
11 years
Ruby's filters and RPM macros
by Vít Ondruch
Hi,
I just pushed following changes into Ruby's dist-git:
http://www.fpaste.org/9488/
There are following changes:
* Macro definition moved into macros.ruby and macros.rubygems files.
I.e. the RPM macro files were extracted into separated files, which
should be a bit easier to maintain. These are also the same files (more
or less), which are later used by RPM. A bit of LUA magic was needed for
that. Hopefully, there will be one day official support for something
like that in RPM.
* Added filtering macros.
You'll be able to use %{?ruby_default_filter} and
%{?rubygems_default_filter} macros in you .spec files, to filter
unnecessary provides. This should be added to guidelinse (on my TODO list).
* Filter automatically generated provides of private libraries
(rhbz#947408).
Similarly to above, this filters unnecessary provides in Ruby's packages
itself.
This is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5317358
scratch build of the above. Please review and test. If there will be no
comments, I am going to build this changes at Thursday.
Thanks.
Vít
11 years
[ANN] gem2rpm 0.9.2 released
by Vít Ondruch
Hi,
Today, I have released gem2rpm 0.9.2 which fixes mainly compatibility
with RubyGems 2.0, thus with Ruby 2.0 as well. There is also updated
template for f19+ (execute gem2rpm with "-t fedora-19-rawhide" template
parameter), which obeys the latest Ruby guidelines.
You can test and give a karma to updates [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] for all
supported Fedoras/EPELs or install the latest version using "gem install".
As always, any bug reports, feature requests or patches ideally please
submit to the github [6].
Vit
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.fc19
[2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.fc18
[3] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.fc17
[4] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.el6
[5] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.el5
[6] https://github.com/lutter/gem2rpm
11 years, 1 month
Re: any hope for logstash?
by Carl Byington
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There is a new version available at either
http://www.five-ten-sg.com/util/logstash.fedora.tar.gz
or
hg clone http://hg.five-ten-sg.com/logstash
I found and patched the problem with logstash finding the elasticsearch
jar files. That path should be specified via a command line switch. This
version seems to run properly, but the following issues still need work:
1) the elasticsearch build (using maven) downloads prebuilt .jar files
and bundles them.
2) the logstash build still downloads prebuilt gems and bundles them.
Is there a document to read regarding proper fedora packaging of jruby
gems?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlFvAtQACgkQL6j7milTFsFqrACcDO2W5TrDv+HVRT5LuzhDkCuS
A8EAniPTSjXC5Oa4KM63b6qoY/93hPS8
=I5dr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11 years, 1 month
Re: any hope for logstash?
by Carl Byington
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I am working on packaging logstash for fedora
http://www.logstash.net/
but the build procedure described here
https://github.com/logstash/logstash/wiki/
Building-and-running-logstash-from-source
seems to be incompatible with Fedora packaging. Is there some other ruby
package that I can use as a model for proper fedora packaging?
I am not at all familiar with building/packaging java or ruby programs.
I normally work on C++ w/ autoconf.
https://nodeload.github.com/logstash/logstash/tar.gz/v1.1.9
The internal Makefile there runs curl/wget to download more source code,
which seems to terribly violate any reasonable packaging system. At a
minimum, we need to collect all the source code into SOURCEx lines in a
.spec file.
For Fedora, do we need to separately package elastic search and
graphtastic, or can we bundle them into this package?
Oh my, that Makefile downloads a prebuilt graphtastic .jar file, so we
will also need to fetch and build that package from source.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlFckjsACgkQL6j7milTFsE/UACdHGighBl8Mhfe2THUrF0HikXK
z3IAnRsH9Zc/9YDXj8WwBIo9N78wAJew
=j4cO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11 years, 1 month
