----- Original Message -----
From: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
To: ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 10:28:42 AM
Subject: 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" <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
>> To: ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:02:02 PM
>> Subject: 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" <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
>>>> To: ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 11:31:10 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dne 30. 09. 20 v 22:16 Jaroslav Prokop napsal(a):
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/09/2020 21:33, Pavel Valena wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> following on my previous email (bellow), I'm working on
regenerating
>>>>>> the list of packages `ruby-rails` group in Koschei.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've done some fixes to package resolving in my script
(I'm left with
>>>>>> 3 unresolved /ambiguous/ packages as well), and got current
list:
>>>>>>
https://gist.github.com/pvalena/ccdd482ace158bc55c891528e2be22ce
>>>> I think there is missing rubygem-mysql2, which might not appear
>>>> anywhere, because it is just optional, but we should not forget to
>>>> include it in the list. For the similar reason, it would be nice to
keep
>>>> rubygem-mongo on the list.
>>> Hmm, but if it's not in the buildroot, should we concern ourselves with
>>> it?
>>> Or do we care for weak dependencies the same? I could add those
>>> explicitly
>>> (Recommends -> Require for those builds), or could be just on some
>>> "Includelist" WDYT?
>>
>> I think there should be some initial list of packages we do care about,
>> this should be probably:
>>
>> ruby
> Not sure about ruby itself. Rails could theoretically run on any ruby
> runtime, right?
We don't have any other runtime ...
Yes, not now. I was just making a point on Ruby on Rails not being tied to one.
> Anyway there's not much harm to have it there, if you insist. I'm simply
> missing the point, ... now I realized. We don't have a `ruby` Koschei
> group. Maybe that's something we want instead?
It is probably easier to search for "ruby". I don't want to create some
dump groups, which will nobody care about. "rails" group would deserve
more attention on itself.
Right. `ruby` is probably sufficient to build ruby (no bootstrap package atm.).
That doesn't explain why it should be in ruby-rails group (apart from `ruby` in the
name), but like I said before, there's no strong argument against, so I'll keep it
on "includelist".
>
>> rubygem-rails and actually everything what appears in the Gemfile of
>> fresh RoR app
> Ok, good idea. Although we currently don't have the asset pipeline
> (webpacker).
Please don't add on the list any packages we don't have (sorry, couldn't
resist :D)
Sure, I didn't mean to. What I wanted to point out, is that the fresh RoR Gemfile
needs to be modified, to be usable in our Fedora.
>
>> and some DB adapters:
>>
>> rubygem-mysql2
>>
>> rubygem-mongo
>>
>> rubygem-pg (mongo got somehow pulled in, but it is just by coincidence
>> I'd say).
>
> Yes, I think this corresponds to comps group. I'll take all packages from
> there.
Good idea.
V.
Pavel
# Note to self: investigate rubygem-mongo.