Hi Robby, Do you by a chance have repository, e.g. in Copr, of all the things you eventually want import into Fedora? Or bugzilla tracker for kitchen-salt / test-kitchen which all the reviews would be blocked against? I am asking, because introducing bigger component into Fedora might be quite challenging and it is not actually visible for other contributors what is your goal. As an example, I have noticed that you have opened rubygem-rexml review ticket [1]. But this should not be necessary, because rubygem-rexml is subpackage of ruby package. So such repository / tracker could help provide bigger picture and possibly save some work on your side. Vít [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129584 Dne 24. 09. 22 v 21:41 Robby Callicotte via devel napsal(a): > Hello, > > > > I would like to unretire rubygem-logging[1]. It is a dependency of the > yet to be built kitchen-salt provisioner for test-kitchen. I have > opened a bz[2] and a releng ticket[3] for review. > > > > > [1] - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-logging > [2] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129557 > [3] - https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11046

Robby Callicotte via devel kirjoitti 26.9.2022 klo 21.52: > > I will also close https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129584 > since > this is already in ruby.  I simply did a search in > src.fedoraproject.org and > did not see this package.  Sorry bout that. Querying the repositories can be a complex task sometimes. Source and binary package names do not necessarily match, there can be multiple binary packages for one source package, and packages can also provide other things than their name. In this case, a better query would have been e.g. 'dnf search rexml' or 'dnf repoquery --whatprovides 'rubygem(rexml)'. On a different level, Sourcegraph is an effective way to query the package sources. For instance, just querying for string 'rexml' reveals that the package exists and that is comes from the 'ruby' source package: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+repo:%5Esrc%5C.fedoraproj...

Dne 27. 09. 22 v 9:21 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Dne 26. 09. 22 v 22:20 Otto Liljalaakso napsal(a): >> >> On a different level, Sourcegraph is an effective way to query the >> package sources. For instance, just querying for string 'rexml' >> reveals that the package exists and that is comes from the 'ruby' >> source package: >> >> https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+repo:%5Esrc%5C.fedoraproj... > Ah, this searches just the dist-git, not the expanded sources (not surprisingly, how would it work). In that case, this is might be better source:

> Actually, is the sourcegraph.com documented somewhere in some > discoverable way? I know that we have this service, but my memory > failed me in details last time  I tried to remember what was its name.

> But not sure if I'll be able to come up with the "search" next time. > But is there any other place where this is documented except of the: > > https://fedoramagazine.org/using-sourcegraph-to-search-34000-fedora-repos...

On Monday, September 26, 2022 2:41:14 AM CDT Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi Robby, > > Do you by a chance have repository, e.g. in Copr, of all the things you > eventually want import into Fedora? Or bugzilla tracker for kitchen-salt > / test-kitchen which all the reviews would be blocked against? I am > asking, because introducing bigger component into Fedora might be quite > challenging and it is not actually visible for other contributors what > is your goal. > > As an example, I have noticed that you have opened rubygem-rexml review > ticket [1]. But this should not be necessary, because rubygem-rexml is > subpackage of ruby package. > > So such repository / tracker could help provide bigger picture and > possibly save some work on your side. > > > Vít > > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129584 > > > Dne 24. 09. 22 v 21:41 Robby Callicotte via devel napsal(a): > >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I would like to unretire rubygem-logging[1]. It is a dependency of the >> yet to be built kitchen-salt provisioner for test-kitchen. I have >> opened a bz[2] and a releng ticket[3] for review. >> >> >> >> >> [1] - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-logging >> [2] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129557 >> [3] - https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11046 Hello Vit, I have built all the components in my home lab, but I will set up a copr for test-kitchen. I was trying to work my way up from the lower dependencies for test-kitchen.

This is why I started with logging, hashie, etc. I will open a bug tracking ticket for this after getting everything loaded into Copr. All total, test-kitchen looks to have 29+ dependencies to build.

I will also close https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129584 since this is already in ruby. I simply did a search in src.fedoraproject.org and did not see this package. Sorry bout that.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 2:13:25 AM CDT Vít Ondruch wrote:

I have set up copr repos for test-kitchen and kitchen-salt.[1][2] I am also in the process of opening up bzs for review. I have a few questions regarding embedded fonts in rdoc... Every rubygem seems to have this... Should I be removing the font files from my specs now? See this thread[3]. I can move discussion to the ruby-sig if that is a more appropriate place to have the embedded font discussion.

[1] - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rcallicotte/test-kitchen/ [2] - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rcallicotte/kitchen-salt/ [3] - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraprojec... Cheers!

Dne 04. 10. 22 v 10:01 Benson Muite napsal(a): > On 10/4/22 02:05, Robby Callicotte via devel wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 2:13:25 AM CDT Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> >> I have set up copr repos for test-kitchen and kitchen-salt.[1][2]  I >> am also >> in the process of opening up bzs for review.  I have a few questions >> regarding >> embedded fonts in rdoc... Every rubygem seems to have this... Should >> I be >> removing the font files from my specs now? See this thread[3]. >> >> I can move discussion to the ruby-sig if that is a more appropriate >> place to >> have the embedded font discussion. > There is a related thread on the ruby-sig list: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraprojec... > > I don't think this is worth of removing at this stage. This needs systematic solution and it would not help to solve it package by package. Not mentioning that removing fonts might break the assumption that the documentation might be freely copied on other places and still keep working.

Vít >> >> >> [1] - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rcallicotte/test-kitchen/ >> [2] - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rcallicotte/kitchen-salt/ >> [3] - >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraprojec... >> >> Cheers!