ruby-sig April 2013

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
9 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

Bringing GitLab in Fedora
by Axilleas Pipinellis 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

Hello dear list! I am applying for this year's GSOC [0] and I would like to contribute by bringing GitLab [1][2] in Fedora. For those that don't already know GitLab, it is a Self hosted Git management software written on Ruby on Rails, pretty much like github's interface (you can try a demo here [3]). It is a ruby app with lots of dependencies and I think this is a great opportunity to extend the list of packaged gems supported by Fedora. Let alone the fact that with the momentum GitLab has gained (it is in the top 50 most popular open source projects on github) it would be an asset if Fedora had this packaged. Also, the core developer was more than willing to help with the process [4]. I could use any help needed on packaging. I have already exchanged a couple of mails with Vit Ondruch and he pointed me to a direction. In fact I am in the middle of reading all the related stuff from the wiki. So what are your thoughts? Any guidance, ideas or insights are very much appreciated! Regards, Axilleas PS. There is also the thought of deploying GitLab to git repositories on fedorahosted.org, but that's irrelevant to this list. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GSOC_2013 [1] http://gitlab.org [2] https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq [3] http://demo.gitlabhq.com/ [4] https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/gitlabhq/SQMDi-yyXmU

7 18

Policy re Gems that don't have RPMs yet?
by Philip Rhoades 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

People, A while ago I posted a note on the Devise forum asking if anyone was going to build an RPM for Fedora but didn't get any responses at all - no-one even viewed the post! What happens with Gems in this category? Am I supposed to do anything? Add a request somewhere? Use the Gem instead of an RPM while I wait for someone to do the work for creating the RPM? Should I bite the bullet and see how to produce the RPM myself? Regards, Phil. -- Philip Rhoades GPO Box 3411 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia E-mail: phil(a)pricom.com.au

6 19

package aliases or an alternative package name for a Ruby gem
by Dan Allen 17 May '13

17 May '13

Is it possible to have an alias to a rubygem rpm or are there exceptions to the rule that it must have the rubygem- prefix. I ask in relation to two packages. The first is rubygem-asciidoctor. This package provides both a Ruby library and a system executable. It's a drop-in replacement for the asciidoc package (in most common cases). People are expecting to be able to install an RPM named "asciidoctor", just a few characters extra from "asciidoc" and get the RPM. Instead, they have to be aware it's a rubygem and type "rubygem-asciidoctor". Is it possible to have an alias package in this case like in Debian where it will install rubygem-asciidoctor when you request asciidoctor? The second case is a new package I'm submitting named Awestruct. This is not a Ruby library at all, but strictly a system executable. Do I have to name it "rubygem-awestruct" or can I name it simply "awestruct". Thanks, -Dan -- Dan Allen Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action Registered Linux User #231597 http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen http://mojavelinux.com http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction

4 4

Ruby's filters and RPM macros
by Vít Ondruch 02 May '13

02 May '13

Hi, I just pushed following changes into Ruby's dist-git: http://www.fpaste.org/9488/ There are following changes: * Macro definition moved into macros.ruby and macros.rubygems files. I.e. the RPM macro files were extracted into separated files, which should be a bit easier to maintain. These are also the same files (more or less), which are later used by RPM. A bit of LUA magic was needed for that. Hopefully, there will be one day official support for something like that in RPM. * Added filtering macros. You'll be able to use %{?ruby_default_filter} and %{?rubygems_default_filter} macros in you .spec files, to filter unnecessary provides. This should be added to guidelinse (on my TODO list). * Filter automatically generated provides of private libraries (rhbz#947408). Similarly to above, this filters unnecessary provides in Ruby's packages itself. This is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5317358 scratch build of the above. Please review and test. If there will be no comments, I am going to build this changes at Thursday. Thanks. Vít

1 1

[ANN] gem2rpm 0.9.2 released
by Vít Ondruch 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

Hi, Today, I have released gem2rpm 0.9.2 which fixes mainly compatibility with RubyGems 2.0, thus with Ruby 2.0 as well. There is also updated template for f19+ (execute gem2rpm with "-t fedora-19-rawhide" template parameter), which obeys the latest Ruby guidelines. You can test and give a karma to updates [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] for all supported Fedoras/EPELs or install the latest version using "gem install". As always, any bug reports, feature requests or patches ideally please submit to the github [6]. Vit [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.fc19 [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.fc18 [3] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.fc17 [4] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.el6 [5] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gem2rpm-0.9.2-1.el5 [6] https://github.com/lutter/gem2rpm

3 2

rubygem serialport and rubygem icaro
by Alejandro Perez 19 Apr '13

19 Apr '13

Helo, If someone wants to review this two packages, rubygem-serialport that was added to support rubygem-icaro ruby api for icarorobotic http://roboticaro.org/ Thanks, help appreciated.

1 0

Re: any hope for logstash?
by Carl Byington 19 Apr '13

19 Apr '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 There is a new version available at either http://www.five-ten-sg.com/util/logstash.fedora.tar.gz or hg clone http://hg.five-ten-sg.com/logstash I found and patched the problem with logstash finding the elasticsearch jar files. That path should be specified via a command line switch. This version seems to run properly, but the following issues still need work: 1) the elasticsearch build (using maven) downloads prebuilt .jar files and bundles them. 2) the logstash build still downloads prebuilt gems and bundles them. Is there a document to read regarding proper fedora packaging of jruby gems? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlFvAtQACgkQL6j7milTFsFqrACcDO2W5TrDv+HVRT5LuzhDkCuS A8EAniPTSjXC5Oa4KM63b6qoY/93hPS8 =I5dr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

Re: any hope for logstash?
by Carl Byington 12 Apr '13

12 Apr '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am working on packaging logstash for fedora http://www.logstash.net/ but the build procedure described here https://github.com/logstash/logstash/wiki/ Building-and-running-logstash-from-source seems to be incompatible with Fedora packaging. Is there some other ruby package that I can use as a model for proper fedora packaging? I am not at all familiar with building/packaging java or ruby programs. I normally work on C++ w/ autoconf. https://nodeload.github.com/logstash/logstash/tar.gz/v1.1.9 The internal Makefile there runs curl/wget to download more source code, which seems to terribly violate any reasonable packaging system. At a minimum, we need to collect all the source code into SOURCEx lines in a .spec file. For Fedora, do we need to separately package elastic search and graphtastic, or can we bundle them into this package? Oh my, that Makefile downloads a prebuilt graphtastic .jar file, so we will also need to fetch and build that package from source. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlFckjsACgkQL6j7milTFsE/UACdHGighBl8Mhfe2THUrF0HikXK z3IAnRsH9Zc/9YDXj8WwBIo9N78wAJew =j4cO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 7

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig April 2013