Ruby 2.2
by Vít Ondruch
Hi everybody,
Since Ruby 2.2 is going to be released during Christmas and -preview1
release is imminent (this Wednesday?), it is probably time to start
looking into its packaging. So here is the updated .spec file [1] and
scratch build [2], which can be finally build on all platforms. Sorry,
no Copr for you, since Ruby's build fails there due to old RHEL kernel :/.
What has changed from packaging point of view? Luckily, not much, but
here are a few bullets which comes to my mind:
* RPM 4.12 introduces new %load function, which is used to load RPM
macros during RPM build. This allowed to drop my custom RPM macro [3].
On the other hand, you'll be able to build the Ruby only on F21+
(luckily, you should be able to build SRPM everywhere).
* The RubyGems filesystem was not explicit enough, so there might be
something accidentally packages. This is now more explicit, so we should
be safer.
* Ruby now ships with MiniTest and Test::Unit. The very good news is
that they are installed so far as a regular gems. This means that you
have to always specify them in your Gemfile, if you are using Bundler,
but this is generally step in good direction. I hope that upstream will
not change their mind :) Due to this change, we have new subpackages
rubygem-test-unit (and rubygem-power_assert, which is now Test::Unit's
dependency). No more %{_bindir}/testrb (but nobody is using it these
days anyway, right? ;)
* Some prevailing test failures were resolved, some others introduced,
but hopefully they'll get resolved prior stable release.
Generally, I'd say that not much has changed since 2.1, which is good news.
Please test the packaging if you can and let me know about any issues
you encountered.
Also, if you have any other suggestions about Ruby packaging in general,
what we could improve etc, this is probably good time to share. It seems
that OpenSUSE guys are improving their packaging, so you might want to
get some inspiration there [4, 5, 6] ;)
Vít
[1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/log/?h=private-ruby-2.2
[2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7578843
[3]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/commit/?h=private-ruby-2.2&id...
[4] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:darix:ruby/ruby-common
[5] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:darix:ruby/ruby2.2
[6] https://github.com/openSUSE/gem2rpm/commits/master
8 months
Hey Ruby packagers: can you help with asciibinder and its
dependencies?
by Matthew Miller
We're using a new system for http://docs.fedoraproject.org. It's in Ruby, and as per tradition requires a number of ruby gems not packaged in Fedora.
The upstream is at https://github.com/redhataccess/ascii_binder, and it looks like we're missing diff_dirs, asciibinder-diagram, guard, guard-shell, guard-livereload, pandoc-ruby, sitemap_generator, and yajl-ruby. Plus something called "trollop" which needs to be a version in f27/rawhide but not yet in f26.
Can you help? Running asciibinder locally is very convenient while writing or converting docs, and having it a `dnf install` away would be really nice.
6 years, 3 months
rspec 3.7.0 hits rawhide
by Mamoru TASAKA
Hello, ruby folks:
Today I've updated rspec suite to 3.7.0. Please try them.
The code difference is rather small, so I expect that almost all
goes well as before.
Regards,
Mamoru
6 years, 6 months
nokogiri vs mini-portile
by Aleksandar Kostadinov
Hello,
I understood recently that we modify some gem files in fedora in a
non-compatible way [1].
Namely nokogiri is stripped off mini-portile which is not needed for
building in Fedora. Unfortunately this change also affects ability of an
app with Gemfile.lock to be installed in a system different from the
development system. e.g. build Gemfile.lock on Fedora 26 but installed
in some other OS.
IMO this is similar to forking the upstream package mgmt system and puts
developers on fedora into surprising situations.
My proposal is to stop doing such modifications to gem files. We can
ship mini-portile and still build against system libraries. This will
allow seamless `bundler` package management no matter where Gemfile.lock
was created.
If we find that some upstream gem is not well packaged, then we should
rather work with the upstream to have that fixed. This would align with
the usual strategy of Red Hat and Fedora to avoid shipping non-upstream
patches (unless they are critical importance).
Regards,
Aleksandar
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482641
6 years, 6 months
Re: updating facter in rawhide
by James Hogarth
On 30 October 2017 at 11:50, Gaël Chamoulaud <gchamoul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 25/Oct/2017 15:22, James Hogarth wrote:
>> On 13 October 2017 at 20:49, James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 October 2017 at 15:16, James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 5 September 2017 at 08:15, James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 5 Sep 2017 8:05 am, "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Dne 4.9.2017 v 14:58 James Hogarth napsal(a):
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm in two minds whether to suggest we leave facter as it is for
>> >>> > F25-27 or whether to at least update those to 2.5.1 which won't have
>> >>> > the drastic 3.0 changes.
>> >>>
>> >>> For me it is always clear. Keep the branched versions as they are unless
>> >>> you have really good arguments for upgrade.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Usually I'd agree... but facter is way behind on bug fixes and hasn't
>> >>> seen an update in two years... a full three fedora releases ago.
>> >>>
>> >>> A move to the most recent 2.X on the branches whilst 3.X is arranged in
>> >>> rawhide has decent justification... but I'll wait on what to do with that
>> >>> after a discussion with upstream.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > I've also not looked fully into the EPEL situation but from an initial
>> >>> > cursory look of gemfiles I think the ruby versions there are out of
>> >>> > their support matrix.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, there is still just Ruby 1.8.7 in EPEL6 and these are rather old
>> >>> and incompatible (mainly due to encoding support and character
>> >>> handling). It should be better in EPEL7 with Ruby 2.0.0. Upstreams tends
>> >>> to drop official support for older Rubies (without any real reason
>> >>> except reducing the support matrix), but the code typically works
>> >>> (although you might need to relax some dependencies).
>> >>>
>> >>> One thing to always consider is the dependency chain, including the
>> >>> build dependencies ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yeah this is another package that's just going to be left at an old
>> >>> version in EPEL6 I fear... I really wish we could link to Red Hat SCL
>> >>> packages for these situations... but oh well. Since my only direction/goal I
>> >>> this endeavour is the removal is the requirement of net-tools, and that's
>> >>> only Fedora, I'm not going to worry about it for now.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Hi guys,
>> >>
>> >> Here's a status update for this change.
>> >>
>> >> I have a Facter 3.9.0 package I'm happy with on initial testing. I'll be
>> >> writing up a F28 self contained change shortly. I've tested puppet in F26
>> >> against this and it appears to behave correctly - would appreciate more eyes
>> >> on it though.
>> >>
>> >> I'm having issues with cmake3 in EPEL7 not picking up the cmake files from
>> >> the leatherman package preventing me from building there - so that will stay
>> >> on 2.5.X for now, similar to F26 and F27 will be updated shortly staying
>> >> within the 2.5.X series for compatibilty concerns.
>> >>
>> >> If you'd like to test the facter 3.9.0 packages this COPR can be used:
>> >>
>> >> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jhogarth/facter3/
>> >>
>> >> We'll need to coordinate on the F28 package so puppet can depend on
>> >> ruby-facter instead of facter ... I'll do a repoquery to see if I can locate
>> >> any similar packages using the ruby bindings as well.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> James
>> >>
>> >
>> > To keep the ruby sig and relevant package owners/reviewers in the loop ...
>> > the change for Facter3 in F28 has been approved.
>> >
>> > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1767#comment-472520
>> >
>> > I'll get the boost-nowide review request in over the weekend, which will
>> > unblock leatherman and cpp-hocon can then be submitted as well.
>> >
>> > The initial spec files that need a final tuning for submission, and which
>> > were used for the COPR, can be found here:
>> >
>> > https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/facter3/
>> >
>> > We've got plenty of time according to the schedule but it'd be nice to get
>> > this resolved in rawhide sooner rather than later :)
>> >
>> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule
>> >
>> > James
>> >
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Further update for this update ;)
>>
>> General stuff
>> -------------------
>>
>> The work of Denis Arnaud has got boost157 packaged as an option in
>> EPEL (as of a few minutes or so when I approve the package review).
>>
>> The boost-nowide dependency has it's own review and has been tested in
>> both F27 and F26 as well as with the boost157 package to build
>> leatherman, and packages further down the tree.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502584
>>
>> The leatherman spec in my fedorapeople space was used to build the
>> version in the COPR with cpp-hocon using that leatherman package to
>> build and facter3 using that to build/run.
>>
>> https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/facter3/
>>
>> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jhogarth/facter3/
>>
>> I've not submitted the cpp-hocon review yet as it's dependent on the
>> boost-nowide one anyway.
>>
>> Obviously as you can see in the COPR the new facter 3 builds fine in
>> EPEL7 and Fedora with the boost157 package and these two dependencies
>> in place.
>>
>> This is all fine for Fedora and puts us in a great place to get this
>> all into place in plenty of time before F28 even branches.
>>
>> Note that although I've built facter3 in the COPR for EPEL7 (using
>> that boost157 package) and facter itself works fine ... the older
>> puppet in EPEL (3.6.2 in EPEL7) is not compatible with the more recent
>> facter.
>>
>> I'm not sure exactly yet where the specific breakage happens and
>> haven't had time to dig through all the old puppet release notes to
>> see where the facter compatibility changes.
>>
>> Does the Ruby-SIG have any plans to get puppet updated in EPEL7? If so
>> we can get the new facter there too ... if not we'll need to hold back
>> and I'm not even sure if the 2.5.X releases of facter would be
>> compatible.
>>
>> Specific questions to people
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> Haikel, have you had time to review the changes to the leatherman spec
>> and patches proposed to bring your review up to date? Do you have time
>> to finish through on that review once the boost-nowide module is
>> approved?
>>
>> Gaël, are you happy remaining POC or would you prefer I get any bug
>> reports after we push facter3 out?
>
> Hi James,
>
> A big sorry about the slow reactivity from my part!
>
> I think I've been promoted to POC since the new fedora sources web application,
> and I appreciate you request to take over it.
>
>> Vit, are you okay to adjust the puppet dependency in fedora to
>> ruby-facter once we get the dependencies built or would you prefer I
>> coordinate that change with the facter update as a Proven Packager?
>>
>> Thanks for all you help and time guys,
>>
>> James
>
> With Gratitude,
>
> Gaël
Hey no worries and thanks :)
FYI everything is aligned now so as soon as Haikel has done his
leatherman build in rawhide I'll be building Facter 3 there.
6 years, 6 months
Ruby 2.5 change proposal
by Vít Ondruch
Hi rubyists,
Ruby 2.5.0.preview1 was released ~2 weeks ago, so it is right about the
time to start with its preparation, so I put together change proposal
for Ruby 2.5 in Fedora 26 [1]. Any feedback is welcome. If no feedback,
I'll propose this change to package
wrangler in a week or so ...
Vít
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.5
6 years, 6 months
