This sounds interesting, and I'm curious to see how well all the gems
build compared to the PyPI packages!
- Ken
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
>
> You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages
> in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd
> like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these
> questions:
>
> 1) Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
> make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the
> group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
>
> 2) For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group
> again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence
> following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group
> (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is
> mandated by the infrastructure ticket template).
>
>
> So what are your thoughts?
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
> [1]
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
>
> [2]
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311
>
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org