ruby-sig October 2010

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
5 discussions

tempe fudcon2011 and ruby sig
by "Guillermo Gómez S." 08 Nov '10

08 Nov '10

This email is just to know if anyone from this SIG will be attending Tempe Fudcon2011, i will, so it would be nice to use FUDCon to promote ruby in general so i would like to start gathering info to get together there. Toshio proposed to me the idea of coding dojos for fudcons but this idea still raw. My bet is we could use fudcon to make fedora-ruby a better platform in all senses, maybe solve issues at the hackfests. krgds Guillermo ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org

4 5

Towards a Fedora Ruby appserver
by David Lutterkort 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

Hi, one of the great things about Ruby webapps is the many, many options you have to deploy them. Besides choosing a web server, as a developer you also get to choose a Rails or Sinatra version, and to pick your favorite rack or Rails plugin(s). The downside of all this is that it's a crazy duplication of work, and following all your choices, you might discover that the versions of some of your plugins conflict with rubygem-* RPM's in Fedora. To make all this easier, it would be great if we could come up with the Grand Useful Fedora Ruby Appserver (yes, GUFRA ;). I see this whole effort consisting of two parts: * discuss the tradeoffs at each level of the stack and come up with a recommendation for what we like (hopefully some document on the Wiki) * package whatever needs to be packaged for Fedora The end result should make it easier for budding Ruby web developers to start with a well-tested set of tools, rather than have to go and figure all this out for themselves. And, of course, packages for all these things in F15. To kick this off, here's what I think belongs into GUFRA: * Ruby interpreter * frontend webserver * Ruby webserver * Rails and Sinatra * Rack plugins (which ones ?) * Rails plugins (which ones ?) * Devtools (rspec, rinari, ...) Some thoughts on the tradeoffs: Ruby interpreter ================ Only MRI seems practical for now, and there the big question is whether we'll make the switchover to 1.9.x in F15, and how. Frontend webserver ================== Frontrunners are probably httpd and nginx. Apache httpd is hte Swiss army knife, nginx is more limited, but people like how easy it is to configure. Ruby webserver ============== Mostly passenger vs. thin vs. unicorn. Passenger has the advantage that it can be loaded as a module into httpd, but packaging it has proven somewhat interesting. OTOH, thin and unicorn are a nightmare to manage, since you get to babysit a good number of processes, and can't take advantage of httpd's ability to spin threads up and down depending on load. Rails ===== For F15, the big question is whether to go with 3.0.x or the latest 2.3.x. And that mostly depends on whether people's favorite plugins are available for Rails 3. As a sidenote, we'll also have to worry about Bundler, since that's what people are told to use for their Rails3 apps; Bundler doesn't play nice with RPM. Plugins ======= Mostly an exercise in collecting people's favorite plugins, and making sure they are in F15, in the right version. David

8 15

Rubygem-rack version is changing in EPEL5.
by Michael Stahnke 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

As discussed the last few weeks during the EPEL weekly meeting, the rubygem-rack package will be updating in EPEL5. There are no current packages that depend on its current version (0.4), but there are several that require rack > 1.0. rubygem-rack will be moving to version 1.1 in EPEL 5. This update will be available in epel-testing no later than tomorrow. This is not a 100% compatible ABI, it's very close but there are a few minor changes. Upon analysis of potential usage of rack, we felt this update was acceptable. If there are no serious objections to moving the version of rack, it will placed in stable after the two-week period spent in epel-testing. rubygem-rack version 1.1 should allow for usage with Sinatra, Padrino, Merb, many versions of Rails, and more. Please let me know if you find any issues and offer karma to the update based upon your experiences with it. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rack-1.1.0-2.el5?_csrf_toke… Thanks stahnma

3 4

Can rpmlint do better with doc yaml files?
by "Guillermo Gómez S." 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

I just ran rpmlint against an ruby -doc subpackage and found 196 warnings about: ... rubygem-sequel-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/sequel-3.16.0/ri/Sequel/Dataset/requires_sql_standard_datetimes%3f-i.yaml %3f This tag contains something that looks like an unexpanded macro; this is often the sign of a misspelling. Please check your specfile. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 196 warnings. About 194 warnings are the same, complaining about yaml files having unexpanded macro. ¿Can we do better with rpmlint? (posting rpmlint output in bz requests with this large non-usefull informaction looks just a waste) Guillermo ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org

2 1

sequel spec dir
by "Guillermo Gómez S." 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

Hello friends... Im helping a friend to package sequel and i have a doubt about it. sequel rubygem includes a spec/ dir. Im not really sure its needed in the rpm. Can someone give me a hand on this? Guillermo ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig October 2010