12:43 p.m.
Hi Ruby SIG,
I'm interested in getting Gitorious into Fedora, and I've outlined the
steps necessary on the wiki [1]. I figured I would throw this out
there for feedback. I'm wondering if anyone see any other things to
consider along with what I've written?
Also, now that rubygem-ruby-net-ldap has been EOL'd in Fedora, does
anyone have a tips or pointers for porting to the net-ldap Gem?
- Ken
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ktdreyer/Gitorious
5:44 a.m.
I would like to see Gitlab http://gitlabhq.com
--
Nihad Abbasov
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com> wrote:
Hi Ruby SIG,
I'm interested in getting Gitorious into Fedora, and I've outlined the
steps necessary on the wiki [1]. I figured I would throw this out
there for feedback. I'm wondering if anyone see any other things to
consider along with what I've written?
Also, now that rubygem-ruby-net-ldap has been EOL'd in Fedora, does
anyone have a tips or pointers for porting to the net-ldap Gem?
- Ken
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ktdreyer/Gitorious
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
3:57 a.m.
Dne 3.8.2012 19:43, Ken Dreyer napsal(a):
Hi Ruby SIG,
I'm interested in getting Gitorious into Fedora, and I've outlined the
steps necessary on the wiki [1]. I figured I would throw this out
there for feedback. I'm wondering if anyone see any other things to
consider along with what I've written?
Also, now that rubygem-ruby-net-ldap has been EOL'd in Fedora, does
anyone have a tips or pointers for porting to the net-ldap Gem?
This was just rename from rubygem-ruby-net-ldap to rubygem-net-ldap as
far as I remember. So it should be no problem.
Otherwise, I would suggest you to read the Redmine discussion earlier in
this list. I am afraid that the issues will be the same.
Vit
12:07 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This was just rename from rubygem-ruby-net-ldap to rubygem-net-ldap
as far
as I remember. So it should be no problem.
Good deal. I later found out that upstream even has a patch in their
queue to follow this rename in their gemspec.[1]
Otherwise, I would suggest you to read the Redmine discussion earlier
in
this list. I am afraid that the issues will be the same.
Yes, that thread is a good description of the same issues Gitorious
will face. I'll quote one of the parts I found most relevant[2]
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Dne 19.7.2012 09:51, Emanuel Rietveld napsal(a):
> The right thing to do is to work hard, track development of all
> dependency relationships on Fedora (perhaps responsibility of package
> maintainer), know when api-breaking changes are going to happen and
> work with upstreams as early as possible to move them over to the new
> version.
I like this scenario, but who will do that? If you volunteer, then there is
no problem :) But it means that you will become more or less Redmine
developer.
I have contributed a couple patches to upstream already, and I
understand that this is going to have to involve some developer
legwork. I figured I would try it as an experiment to see what is
possible.
I'm slowly publishing my interim work on fedorapeople.org. I intend to
document FPG compromises very clearly on the wiki page, and then
slowly chip away at them. At the same time, I can be submitting the
"easier" requisite gems for review into Fedora proper. If I can keep a
running dashboard of the issues, hopefully it will not be
insurmountable :)
I understand that Ruby's culture is all about bundling, and trying to
counteract that as a distro can be a bit like pushing a boulder
uphill. But at the same time, it's not like the question of bundling
is a new one. So I figured I might as well take a crack at it with
Gitorious and see what it's like.
One of the areas I could use the most help with from the Ruby SIG is
understanding what dependencies are a "bad idea". For example, in the
Redmine review, Jan pointed out that one of the Gem dependencies was
abandoned upstream[3]. In my wiki page[4], does anyone see Gems in the
list that stand out as similarly problematic?
- Ken
[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gitorious/gpyb3Qh1Hb8/J2M-9rrpIw8J
[2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2012-July/001074.html
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/825495#c1
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ktdreyer/Gitorious
9:56 a.m.
Dne 9.8.2012 19:07, Ken Dreyer napsal(a):
I have contributed a couple patches to upstream already, and I
understand that this is going to have to involve some developer
legwork. I figured I would try it as an experiment to see what is
possible.
That is the word of man ;) Good to hear that.
I'm slowly publishing my interim work on fedorapeople.org. I intend to
document FPG compromises very clearly on the wiki page, and then
slowly chip away at them. At the same time, I can be submitting the
"easier" requisite gems for review into Fedora proper. If I can keep a
running dashboard of the issues, hopefully it will not be
insurmountable :)
I understand that Ruby's culture is all about bundling, and trying to
counteract that as a distro can be a bit like pushing a boulder
uphill. But at the same time, it's not like the question of bundling
is a new one. So I figured I might as well take a crack at it with
Gitorious and see what it's like.
One of the areas I could use the most help with from the Ruby SIG is
understanding what dependencies are a "bad idea". For example, in the
Redmine review, Jan pointed out that one of the Gem dependencies was
abandoned upstream[3]. In my wiki page[4], does anyone see Gems in the
list that stand out as similarly problematic?
On first look, I'm curious about hoe, echoe, gemcutter, rubyforge. They
seems to be development or better to say deployment dependencies. So I
believe it should be possible to get rid of them. They are probably used
in some Rakefile for some management tasks.
Vit
- Ken
[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gitorious/gpyb3Qh1Hb8/J2M-9rrpIw8J
[2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2012-July/001074.html
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/825495#c1
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ktdreyer/Gitorious
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
4269
days inactive
4276
days old
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Ken Dreyer -
narkoz.2008＠gmail.com -
Vít Ondruch