Hello, I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby package by issuing: # sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17 Please note that installation of fully versioned rubygems is *mandatory* ATM and you have to *uninstall rubygems* package prior installing this test release to avoid version conflicts. This will be fixes as soon as final release of Ruby will be available. Vit [1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/ruby_1.9.3.repo _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:41:47 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have updated the repository to the officially released Rugy 1.9.3-p0. > Installation should be now as simple as: > > # yum install ruby > > > Vit > Hi Vit, If I may request, can we have the Ruby/Rubygem packaging guidelines updated for 1.9.x and compat for 1.8.x? I have a lot of rubygems to package and I'm unsure if some of these will work for 1.9 and RSPec 2.x standards. This is in relation to getting OpenNebula 3.x in for Fedora 17 timeframe. Thanks, Shawn.

> Dne 4.10.2011 16:23, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> Hello, >> >> I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit >> newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] >> into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby >> package by issuing: >> >> # sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17 >> >> Please note that installation of fully versioned rubygems is *mandatory* >> ATM and you have to *uninstall rubygems* package prior installing this >> test release to avoid version conflicts. This will be fixes as soon as >> final release of Ruby will be available. >> >> Vit >> >> >> >> >> [1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/ruby_1.9.3.repo >> _______________________________________________ >> ruby-sig mailing list >> ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list > ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Hi, I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in future Fedoras. The main changes are:

>- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going >to file a feature? We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature proposal [1] and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval before Christmas.

Dne 19.12.2011 16:26, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a): >On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going >>>to file a feature? >>We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of >>feature proposal [1] and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval >>before Christmas. >How will Ruby 1.8 be handled? Will we keep a ruby-1.8 package around? No, sorry, I don't plan it. There is no reason except nostalgia. You can use JRuby if you really need.

>I was thinking that, similarly to how Python 2.6 and 2.7 were handled, >we could have a compatibility RPM for people who depend on 1.8, such as >myself for my downstream projects. May be you should provide more details for what reason you cannot use Ruby 1.9.3 to help me understand. And believe me, we went through more than 320 packages in Fedora to make sure they are at least buildable with Ruby 1.9.3, if they had properly executed test suited, there is also high chance that these packages will work. There is less then 15 packages from the total amount which are still troubling us but these packages are typically obsolete anyway (take sdljava as an example).

>My main downstream project is based on 1.8 (since that's what's in RHEL >and will be for a while) so I'd like to see at least two releases with >1.8 to give me time to transition my work to 1.9 completely. May be you should start to be worried about RHEL 7.

Honestly, if you are developing for current RHEL, then it is best to develop on RHEL. If you are developing for future RHEL, then it is best to develop on Rawhide. However, this is not discussion about RHEL but about Fedora.

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Darryl L. Pierce"<dpierce(a)redhat.com> > To: "Ruby SIG mailing list"<ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 5:45:19 PM > Subject: Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:30:39PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> My main downstream project is based on 1.8 (since that's what's in >>> RHEL >>> and will be for a while) so I'd like to see at least two releases >>> with >>> 1.8 to give me time to transition my work to 1.9 completely. >> May be you should start to be worried about RHEL 7. > I am looking to the future and especially to Ruby 1.9. :) > >> Honestly, if you are developing for current RHEL, then it is best >> to >> develop on RHEL. If you are developing for future RHEL, then it is >> best to develop on Rawhide. However, this is not discussion about >> RHEL but about Fedora. > That's already the process. As I said, I'm just being conservative > about > the transition; i.e., the idea of "we're going to completely dump > LANG > vX for LANG vY with this release" (when there are incompatibilities > between X and Y) gives me chills. ;) There is a remote possibility (and I put the stress on "remote") that a software collection with Ruby 1.8.7 and a subset of Rubygems will go into Fedora 17 (see [1] for information on software collections). However, maintaining software collections is a huge overhead and we should focus on the new stuff more - like getting newest versions into Rawhide and encourage everyone to use them (and actually use them ourselves). Ruby 1.8.7 will be reaching EOL in year and half [2] and only a half of year from that is normal maintenance, so it's time to move on. [1] http://baseos.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com/Stack/ISVDeveloperGuide

[2] http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/2094567 Regards, Bohuslav. > -- > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. > Delivering value year after year. > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > > > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list > ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Dne 24.12.2011 01:54, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): Thanks for these rpms. I've been trying to get the 1.9.3 srpm to rebuild onto EL6 and I've been having some issues. It looks to be centered around autoconf and m4 (surprise ensues). I can cleanly compile ruby 1.9.3 outside the spec file (without patches, macros etc) but once I attempt to build within the spec framework it fails. Would anybody happen to have any pointers? stahnma _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing listruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.orghttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig Hi, Thank you for pointing it out. I found that there was typo in RubyGems patch, which is now fixed in git [1]. The build in Koji works just fine now [2]. I also successfully tried build for RHEL-6 for all supported platforms. Vit

[1] https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec/commit/b51d19470e704c9460c0c55ebf725cf... [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3613876 _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Hi, I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in future Fedoras.

The main changes are: - Install RubyGems library outside of Ruby directory structure into /usr/share/rubygems folder. This should allows us to share RubyGems among different Ruby implementations.

- Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory.

- "gem install" now installs gems into share/gems directory while their binary extensions goes into lib{64}/gems directory. This (in theory) allows to install binary gems side by side without conflicts. - RubyGems has now its own -devel subpackage, which will be need in the future for build of RPM packages. - Enhanced macros.ruby and macros.rubygems. - All tests are green now (credits goes to bkabrda). The detailed changelog you can find at GitHub repo [1].

1.9.3 from my testing repository, you should be able to simply do: # yum update ruby However, please note that due to directory structure changes, you might need reinstall all your gems. And as always, any feedback is appreciated. Vit [1] https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec

>> - Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems >> installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, >> gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the >> gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory. > > I don't this behavior is right. If gems installed by regular users > goes into under their home > directory, so should be on root because root is one of the users and > we should prevent root's > installing gems under root's home directory. > I don't quite understand what you are saying - in one sentence you say that we should install gems in root home because root is just another user and then you say that we should prevent it. Personally, I think the Vit's proposed behaviour is right, as root is not (should not) be used for development/running applications and therefore there is no need for gem directory in his home. At the same time, root should be able to install non-rpm gems if he wants to make their new/unpackaged versions available system-wide.

> - It seems that %{ruby_libdir}/rbconfig should belong to rubygems, > not ruby-libs. Why? It contains information about ruby, not about rubygems.

> - rubygems rpm contains "bigdecimal-1.1.0.gemspec > io-console-0.3.gemspec > json-1.5.4.gemspec minitest-2.5.1.gemspec"?? > - At least these components should have its own subpackage rpms. > - Also, for example the latest minitest is 2.9.1. rubygems (or > rubygem-minitest > built from ruby.... too complicated) should use latest minitest > (and also please re-check components bundled in ruby - I hope > ruby upstream will again unbundle these components ... this is > again too complicated ..) There has already been a proposal to gemify standard library: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/StdlibGem - the question is, when it will really happen. For now, I agree we should look into moving these gems into subpackages (Is it even possible/feasible? Will everything work if we update them to newer versions?) and _consider_ it.

Hello, Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/14/2011 10:33 PM +9:00: > Hi, > > I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my > testing repository. > They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in > future Fedoras. First of all, I appreciate your work on ruby 193 packaging. Then I leave some quick comments now.

> The main changes are: > > - Install RubyGems library outside of Ruby directory structure into > /usr/share/rubygems folder. > This should allows us to share RubyGems among different Ruby > implementations. > - Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems > installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, > gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the > gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory. I don't this behavior is right. If gems installed by regular users goes into under their home directory, so should be on root because root is one of the users and we should prevent root's installing gems under root's home directory.

> - "gem install" now installs gems into share/gems directory while > their binary extensions goes into lib{64}/gems > directory. This (in theory) allows to install binary gems side by > side without conflicts. > - RubyGems has now its own -devel subpackage, which will be need in > the future for build of RPM packages. > - Enhanced macros.ruby and macros.rubygems. > - All tests are green now (credits goes to bkabrda). > > The detailed changelog you can find at GitHub repo [1]. Some packaging issue. - Please check directory ownership issue. - For example, the directory %{ruby_libarchdir}/digest/ or so are not owned by any packages. - The directory %_libdir/pkgconfig should not be owned by ruby-devel. - The dependency of -tcltk subpackage on -libs package should be %_isa specific.

- Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now?

- It seems that %{ruby_libdir}/rbconfig should belong to rubygems, not ruby-libs.

- build.log just shows: -------------------------------------------------- compiling main.c compiling dmydln.c compiling dmyencoding.c compiling version.c -------------------------------------------------- or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific compilation flags are passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that we can see what commands are actually executed during build.

- Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also "cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults" in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p".

- Consider to move mkmf.rb to ruby-devel: -------------------------------------------------- <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby ruby-1.9.3.0-2.fc17.i686 <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby-devel package ruby-devel is not installed <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# ruby -e "require 'mkmf'" mkmf.rb can't find header files for ruby at /usr/share/include/ruby.h --------------------------------------------------

- rubygems rpm contains "bigdecimal-1.1.0.gemspec io-console-0.3.gemspec json-1.5.4.gemspec minitest-2.5.1.gemspec"?? - At least these components should have its own subpackage rpms. - Also, for example the latest minitest is 2.9.1. rubygems (or rubygem-minitest built from ruby.... too complicated) should use latest minitest (and also please re-check components bundled in ruby - I hope ruby upstream will again unbundle these components ... this is again too complicated ..)

- include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately packaged on Fedora. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432 Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma? If not, what prevents it?

If you have previously installed Ruby > 1.9.3 from my testing repository, you should be able to simply do: > # yum update ruby > However, please note that due to directory structure changes, you > might need reinstall all your gems. > And as always, any feedback is appreciated. > > Vit > > > [1] https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec Regards, Mamoru _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Hello, again: Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/19/2011 09:43 PM +9:00: >> - Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now? > Are you referring to my TODO [2]? Exactly. > Since this is really tricky. > I agree that, if I claim that the RI documentation is platform > specific, it should go into the %{_libdir}, > on the other side this is bug IMO and I believe that it was also > agreed by upstrem. I don't think ri documents should be arch-dependent, either. The problem is that currently they really are. Someone can say "so for now they must be moved to %_libdir until bugs gets fixed", others can say it need not. >> - build.log just shows: >> -------------------------------------------------- >> compiling main.c >> compiling dmydln.c >> compiling dmyencoding.c >> compiling version.c >> -------------------------------------------------- >> or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific >> compilation flags are >> passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that >> we can >> see what commands are actually executed during build. > > You are right that build of 1.8.7 was more verbose. However I can't > see any difference in configuration or make flags. I'll try to take a > look into it but I can't promise. > >> - Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also >> "cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults" >> in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p". > > Is it required at all? It is not used even in %install of 1.8.7, but > there might be different reason. > However there is guideline [5], so it is probably good idea. Please check if timestamps on installed files are correctly kept (showing verbose build log will also make it easier to check this). > >> - include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately >> packaged on Fedora. >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432 >> Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma? >> If not, what prevents it? > > This is though. I remember this lengthy discussion [4] about (not > only) oniguruma and from that, This discussion seems to be about using origuruma with ruby 1.8.x. > I had the feeling that the upstream version is not compatible with Ruby. > Moreover, I checked the latest sources from Fedora and from Ruby and > they differs. > I cannot imagine to patch Ruby to support the upstream library, > although we can try > to open request upstream? What do you think? Well, - First of all I don't know where origuruma upstream is working. If they (oniguruma upstream) make changes on origuruma bundled in ruby tarball, they should also update origuruma tarball and release new one. - Bundling such external software like origuruma is almost forbidden on Fedora (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 : why rubygem-passenger cannot be in Fedora currently) and we should advise ruby upstream to use external oniguruma (or to add support to use external oniguruma).

Regards, Mamoru _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Hello, I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby package by issuing: # sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17 Please note that installation of fully versioned rubygems is *mandatory* ATM and you have to *uninstall rubygems* package prior installing this test release to avoid version conflicts. This will be fixes as soon as final release of Ruby will be available. Vit [1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/ruby_1.9.3.repo _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig