ruby-sig January 2013

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
12 discussions

BASH completion for Ruby
by Vít Ondruch 25 May '16

25 May '16

Hi guys, Anybody have any experience with some scripts for bash completion? Have you tried any? Should we integrate any? Just a quick googling gave me two results: https://github.com/mernen/completion-ruby https://github.com/pdkl95/rubygems-completion And there are probably others. I did not tried them yet. Have you? Do you have other/better tips? Thank you Vit

2 3

warning: rspec.rb provided by rubygem-rspec
by Mo Morsi 18 Feb '13

18 Feb '13

rspec1 shipped rspec.rb as part of the rubygem-rspec package rspec2 shipped rspec.rb as part of rubygem-rspec-core, so to assist in that migration we left rubygem-rspec at 1.x for the time, and converted packages to depend on rspec-core. When the migration was done, we updated rubygem-rspec. rubygem-rspec was just updated in rawhide to 2.11.0 which again provides rspec.rb (which was removed from rspec-core 2.11.0). So packages just depending on rspec-core will now need to pull in rspec to be able to use rspec.rb The fix is easy enough, just a word of warning if you see related errs in broken builds w/ gem packages starting in rawhide. rspec also depends on an updated version of diff-lcs, which is available in rawhide (thanks mamoru & vit!) -Mo

2 1

review swap: rubygems related packages
by Mamoru TASAKA 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

Hello, all: I have some packages related to rubygems ready for review and I would like to swap reviews. Each package is small and should not take so much time. rubygem-levenshtein https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891970 rubygem-gobject-introspection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892163 rubygem-net-http-digest_auth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892313 rubygem-unf_ext https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892314 rubygem-webrobots https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892315 rubygem-unf - depends on rubygem-unf_ext https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904639 rubygem-domain_name - depends on ruby-unf, so also depends on rubygem-unf_ext https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904640 rubygem-ruby-ntlm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904707 Regards, Mamoru

1 0

Rails 3.0.x are not supported by upstream anymore
by Vít Ondruch 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

Hi, Just FYI, you probably have not noticed, but Rails 3.0.x are not supported anymore by upstream: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rubyonrails-security/G4… Vít

1 0

Ruby 2.0 and JRuby features for F19 + packaging guidelines change
by Vít Ondruch 23 Jan '13

23 Jan '13

Hi rubyists, Today, we proposed new features for F19: Ruby 2.0.0: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_2.0.0 JRuby 1.7: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/JRuby_1.7 These will be accompanied by small changes to packaging guidelines [1] if approved by FPC [2]. Note, that we are still planning to introduce rubypick [3] (formerly know as multiruby), to ease selection of alternative Ruby implementations. Any feedback welcomed. Thanks. Vít [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/242 [3] https://github.com/bkabrda/rubypick

4 5

The recent rails vulnerability
by Tejas Dinkar 10 Jan '13

10 Jan '13

Just in case you guys hadn't heard about it: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rubyonrails-security/61… This is considered an urgent fix.

3 3

JRuby masterplan for F19 - RFC
by Bohuslav Kabrda 08 Jan '13

08 Jan '13

Hi all, as F19 is slowly approaching, I thought it'd be great to finalize the stuff about JRuby/Ruby integration with Fedora. Here are the changes and additions around JRuby, that I suggest: * Global changes - As already mentioned in [1], change the default operating_system.rb, the current version is at [2]. The question here is, whether to use versioned directories for extensions. In my opinion we should do that, as users installing Gems under /usr/local may want to install them for different version of JRuby (Rubinius in the future). This change will cost us nothing and will make sure that we can utilize this in the future. - Add additional macros to macros.rubygems, see [3] (if the macros names seem confusing, see the section about packaging gems for JRuby below). - Two connected problems: 1) RPM generates auto provides from shebangs, e.g. #!/usr/bin/ruby will automatically require ruby package; 2) How to run programs with #!/usr/bin/ruby shebangs under JRuby? -- We've discussed this situation with Vit and we came up with an interesting proposal for solution. There will be a package (probably with just one file) /usr/bin/ruby. This will be a bash script, that will take all given parameters and pass them to the proper interpreter (/usr/bin/ruby-mri or /usr/bin/jruby). There will be a default choice (MRI, I guess) and the switching will be done by passing _jruby_ (possibly also containing version) or _mri_ as the first parameter. If e.g. /usr/bin/ruby-mri is not found, the script will automatically try /usr/bin/jruby and if that is not present either, it will print out that user needs to install a Ruby runtime. -- This way, the automatically generated requires will point to the package containing /usr/bin/ruby and not the actual ruby package, therefore leaving it up to user which Ruby runtime he wants to install. -- Also, every executable file with this shebang can be run with _mri_ or _jruby_ parameter: "rspec _mri_" vs. "rspec _jruby_", the same for gem, irb and anything that has the proper shebang. * Changes to packaging - Platform independent packages mustn't R: ruby, unless there is a specific reason to do so. - Packages with MRI binary extensions will have to R: and BR: ruby explictly, not just ruby(abi), as that will also be provided by JRuby. - Packages meant only for JRuby will have to R: and BR: jruby explictly (same reason). These will use the %gem_extdir_jruby macro. - Packages with extensions for both Ruby and JRuby (let's consider rubygem-json, example of converted specfile is at [4]): -- MRI extension will probably stay in the core package (rubygem-json). -- There will be a subpackage with -java suffix (because the naming scheme on rubygems.org gives e.g. json-1.7.5-java). The subpackage will contain it's own .gemspec and because all the directory/file names contain the "-java" string, it will use the %gem_*_java macros. -- The -java subpackage will contain the JRuby extension under %gem_extdir_java and it's platform independent part will be a symlink to platform independent part of its MRI counterpart (e.g. /usr/share/gems/gems/json-1.7.5-java -> /usr/share/gems/gems/json-1.7.5). -- The disadvantage of this approach is, that the core package (rubygem-json) will be a dependency of rubygem-json-java, therefore forcing MRI to be installed. or -- The rubygem-json-java package could be independent of rubygem-json (e.g. everything same as above, except it will actually contain the platform independent part). This would in fact not require MRI ruby to be installed, but I'm not sure of the consequences of this. -- A big question is, how to handle provides (applies to both cases). RPM cannot say "I'm fine with rubygem-json or rubygem-json-java", so the -json package will probably have to Provides: rubygem(json-java) and users will have to install these manually, if they want to use JRuby. * Others: - There is also a general problem with Provides/Requires of the interpreters themselves. I think that JRuby should provide both ruby(abi) = 1.9.1 and ruby(abi) = 1.8. I'm however not sure whether to provide e.g. rubygem(io-console), which is required by rubygems package. The problem with this provide is this: 1) user installs JRuby (that provides rubygem(io-console)) and rubygems. 2) user installs MRI, rubygem-io-console doesn't get installed, as the dependency is already satisfied. 3) "gem" command (specifically its part that depends on io-console) run under MRI fails. As I see it, we probably won't get rid of having MRI ruby installed with JRuby, at least not for the near future (but at least the auto-requires of /usr/bin/ruby can be handled, which is a step in the right direction). I hope I made my points clear, please share your thoughts/comments/critisism. BTW, I'll be updating my testing repo with JRuby as soon as JRuby 1.7.1 are out. When we agree on how the stuff mentioned above should work and have it approved by FESCo/FPC, I'll start pushing JRuby into F19, but that seems to be far away for now... Thumbs up if you read the whole mail :) Slavek. -- Regards, Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda. [1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2012-November/001142.html [2] https://github.com/bkabrda/jruby.spec/blob/master/rubygems/operating_system… [3] https://github.com/bkabrda/jruby.spec/blob/master/rubygems/rubygems.spec#L1… [4] https://github.com/bkabrda/jruby.spec/blob/master/rubygem-json/rubygem-json…

6 20

Rubygem RPMs and "bundle install"
by Philip Rhoades 08 Jan '13

08 Jan '13

2 1

Heads up: Rails 3.2.10 in Rawhide
by Vít Ondruch 04 Jan '13

04 Jan '13

Hello everybody, The Rails 3.2.10 will be soon in Rawhide. The build is already in its second half, but it takes ages. Please let me know if you encounter any issues. Vít

1 0

Rubygem RPMs and "yum update"
by Philip Rhoades 02 Jan '13

02 Jan '13

People, I have just upgraded to Fedora 18 x86_64 and installed all the Ruby/Rails RPMs but I notice when I create a test rails app and then add something to Gemfile and do "bundle install", the system starts pulling in all the native Gems - I would like to stick to just using RPMs - so I presume "bundle install" does not get used in the change to the RPM environment? (ie I should manually install the missing gem RPMs). Also, I presume one has to be careful about doing a system-wide update of RPMs with "yum update" in case updated Gems break stuff specified in Gemfile.lock? Thanks, Phil. -- Philip Rhoades GPO Box 3411 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au

4 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig January 2013