ruby-sig September 2020

ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
4 discussions

Ruby 2.2
by Vít Ondruch 25 Jan '22

25 Jan '22

Hi everybody, Since Ruby 2.2 is going to be released during Christmas and -preview1 release is imminent (this Wednesday?), it is probably time to start looking into its packaging. So here is the updated .spec file [1] and scratch build [2], which can be finally build on all platforms. Sorry, no Copr for you, since Ruby's build fails there due to old RHEL kernel :/. What has changed from packaging point of view? Luckily, not much, but here are a few bullets which comes to my mind: * RPM 4.12 introduces new %load function, which is used to load RPM macros during RPM build. This allowed to drop my custom RPM macro [3]. On the other hand, you'll be able to build the Ruby only on F21+ (luckily, you should be able to build SRPM everywhere). * The RubyGems filesystem was not explicit enough, so there might be something accidentally packages. This is now more explicit, so we should be safer. * Ruby now ships with MiniTest and Test::Unit. The very good news is that they are installed so far as a regular gems. This means that you have to always specify them in your Gemfile, if you are using Bundler, but this is generally step in good direction. I hope that upstream will not change their mind :) Due to this change, we have new subpackages rubygem-test-unit (and rubygem-power_assert, which is now Test::Unit's dependency). No more %{_bindir}/testrb (but nobody is using it these days anyway, right? ;) * Some prevailing test failures were resolved, some others introduced, but hopefully they'll get resolved prior stable release. Generally, I'd say that not much has changed since 2.1, which is good news. Please test the packaging if you can and let me know about any issues you encountered. Also, if you have any other suggestions about Ruby packaging in general, what we could improve etc, this is probably good time to share. It seems that OpenSUSE guys are improving their packaging, so you might want to get some inspiration there [4, 5, 6] ;) Vít [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/log/?h=private-ruby-2.2 [2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7578843 [3] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/commit/?h=private-ruby-2.2&id=8… [4] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:darix:ruby/ruby-common [5] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:darix:ruby/ruby2.2 [6] https://github.com/openSUSE/gem2rpm/commits/master

4 18

Ruby 2.8
by Vít Ondruch 04 Jan '21

04 Jan '21

Hi everybody, I started early this time and therefore, there is already PR with changes for upcoming Ruby version: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/55 and the build should be available (if succeeds) here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41848663 So far, there are changes in bundled gems. The RSS and REXML gems are not bundled gems, therefore I extracted them into separate subpackages, while Net::Telnet and XMLRPC were dropped from Ruby and therefore ruby-libs now obsoletes these two packages. As always, any feedback is welcome. Vít

6 51

Two stage Ruby compilation / Bootstrapping
by Vít Ondruch 19 Nov '20

19 Nov '20

Hi all, Ruby upstream is implementing more and more stuff directly in Ruby. We already had issues, that build of Ruby required Ruby when we did some modifications [1]. In subsequent ticket, one of Ruby committers said [2]: > ... snip ... > BASERUBY is already a build requirement > ... snip ... > I would like to implement more of Ruby using Ruby, so miniruby may depend on prelude one day. With recent changes, such as [3], I am afraid that the day has come. Previously, if you wanted to patch lets say "gem_prelude.rb", it was enough to patch it. But now you *need* Ruby to process it into miniprelude.c. There are possibly 4 ways out of this. 1) Build Ruby in two stages. a) build (mini)ruby, apply patches b) build Ruby using the previously built (mini)ruby. 2) Use previous version of Ruby available in Fedora to bootstrap Ruby. But this does not work ATM, at least when RubyGems are installed. And upstream is doing what they can to make RubyGems inseparable [4]. 3) Prepare patches locally and apply the required changes also to the pregenerated files. But the problem here is, that the patches might unpredictably fail between updates. I don't think that they keep any API/ABI promises for the tools used to generate those files. 4) Don't use the upstream tarball, but generate it from sources with patches integrated. I think we should probably start to take look at 1), specifically into the *miniruby* variant if that is enough. If that is done, the 2) could optionally blend in. And in the mean time use 3) because otherwise I really don't know how to integrate the ABRT hook support. I don't like 4) at all, unless we have some Fedora standardized way of doing so. On the positive side, 1(2) would allow us to stay better in line with "Pregenerated code" guidelines [5], because there is already quite a lot of pre-generated code shipped in Ruby release tarball. Thoughts? Vít [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c0513dfb8c81a228619c6142195c5117a… [2] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15306#note-1 [3] https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2655 [4] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16431 [5] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packa…

3 7

ruby-rails group in Koschei & RoR 6.0.3.3
by Pavel Valena 02 Oct '20

02 Oct '20

Hello, following on my previous email (bellow), I'm working on regenerating the list of packages `ruby-rails` group in Koschei. I've done some fixes to package resolving in my script (I'm left with 3 unresolved /ambiguous/ packages as well), and got current list: https://gist.github.com/pvalena/ccdd482ace158bc55c891528e2be22ce I'm also thinking of a way to get list of packages that are requiring the dependency (let me know if you want to see that). Proposed (generated) changes: https://gist.github.com/pvalena/dd00dafa1bf37b8f74312b57e650d8b0 + means addition - means removal There are some suspicious entries, like `+rubygem-rspec2`, which will need further investigation. I'll welcome any additional feedback on packages that are missing, or should not be in this group. Currently failing (dependent) packages: https://gist.github.com/pvalena/f9b40fdebed1b9864ea1e1c7fedcb14a _ _ _ _ Additionaly, Ruby on Rails was updated to 6.0.3.3 in Rawhide and F33 has update pending: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-83a4999b7c https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4dd34860a3 Please let me know if this breaks something for you. You can see my test passing here: https://gist.github.com/pvalena/350309be47258e9bdb0e01f7e04fde12 Regards, -- Pavel Valena Software Engineer, Red Hat Brno, Czech Republic ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: "Pavel Valena" <pvalena(a)redhat.com> > To: "Ruby SIG mailing list" <ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:59:58 PM > Subject: Current build failures from RoR group > > Hello, > > I'm refreshing ruby-rails group[1] in koschei, and I've decided to use COPR > for it. I'm rebuilding every 'rubygem-*' dependency that gets pulled in > (recursively) for the build. > > Current failing packages can be found here: > https://gist.github.com/pvalena/f9b40fdebed1b9864ea1e1c7fedcb14a > (Some of them may have already PRs pending.) > > The builds can be found here: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-on-rails/packages/ > > All pulled-in packages (resulting list): > https://gist.github.com/pvalena/ccdd482ace158bc55c891528e2be22ce > > > [1] https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/groups/ruby-rails > > Regards, > -- > Pavel Valena > Software Engineer, Red Hat > Brno, Czech Republic >

4 9

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

ruby-sig September 2020