Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Stahnke mastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir.
I probably should have also been clear I am well-aware the Ruby 1.9 changes won't impact EL6, but at my work they do :)
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Stahnkemastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir.
I probably should have also been clear I am well-aware the Ruby 1.9 changes won't impact EL6, but at my work they do :) _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
It was not updated yet, but any help is greatly appreciated. I am accepting pull requests on github.
Vit
I started making a patch for Ruby 1.9 and ran into something odd. The 1.9.3 rpms built from the ruby.spec project, provide a ruby(abi) of 1.9.1. I assure you that 1.9.3 and 1.9.1 are not 100% compatible. Could we move the ruby.spec rpms to 1.9.3? Or if we want something more generic possibly 1.9.
Mike
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Stahnkemastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir.
I probably should have also been clear I am well-aware the Ruby 1.9 changes won't impact EL6, but at my work they do :) _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
It was not updated yet, but any help is greatly appreciated. I am accepting pull requests on github.
Vit _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Running Ruby 1.9.3, I get these from RbConfig:
irb(main):003:0> RbConfig::CONFIG['ruby_version'] => "1.9.1" irb(main):004:0> RbConfig::CONFIG['LIBRUBY'] => "libruby.so.1.9.1" irb(main):005:0> RbConfig::CONFIG['RUBY_PROGRAM_VERSION'] => "1.9.3"
Could you provide a specific case of the incompatibility you are talking about?
Regards, Bohuslav.
----- Original Message -----
I started making a patch for Ruby 1.9 and ran into something odd. The 1.9.3 rpms built from the ruby.spec project, provide a ruby(abi) of 1.9.1. I assure you that 1.9.3 and 1.9.1 are not 100% compatible. Could we move the ruby.spec rpms to 1.9.3? Or if we want something more generic possibly 1.9.
Mike
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Stahnkemastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir.
I probably should have also been clear I am well-aware the Ruby 1.9 changes won't impact EL6, but at my work they do :) _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
It was not updated yet, but any help is greatly appreciated. I am accepting pull requests on github.
Vit _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Running Ruby 1.9.3, I get these from RbConfig:
irb(main):003:0> RbConfig::CONFIG['ruby_version'] => "1.9.1" irb(main):004:0> RbConfig::CONFIG['LIBRUBY'] => "libruby.so.1.9.1" irb(main):005:0> RbConfig::CONFIG['RUBY_PROGRAM_VERSION'] => "1.9.3"
Could you provide a specific case of the incompatibility you are talking about?
Regards, Bohuslav.
----- Original Message -----
I started making a patch for Ruby 1.9 and ran into something odd. The 1.9.3 rpms built from the ruby.spec project, provide a ruby(abi) of 1.9.1. I assure you that 1.9.3 and 1.9.1 are not 100% compatible. Could we move the ruby.spec rpms to 1.9.3? Or if we want something more generic possibly 1.9.
Mike
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Michael Stahnkemastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir.
I probably should have also been clear I am well-aware the Ruby 1.9 changes won't impact EL6, but at my work they do :) _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
It was not updated yet, but any help is greatly appreciated. I am accepting pull requests on github.
Vit _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi everybody,
I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora 17. You can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of gem from updates-testing.
Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other than F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your command line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17 template will be picked up automagically.
Any feedback is welcomed.
Vit
On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi everybody,
I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora 17. You can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of gem from updates-testing.
Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other than F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your command line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17 template will be picked up automagically.
Any feedback is welcomed.
Vit
Hello,
Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new rubygems into rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8 for rawhide doesn't have this landed yet.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
----- Original Message -----
On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi everybody,
I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora 17. You can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of gem from updates-testing.
Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other than F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your command line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17 template will be picked up automagically.
Any feedback is welcomed.
Vit
Hello,
Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new rubygems into rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8 for rawhide doesn't have this landed yet.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi Shawn, we have a special Koji target named f17-ruby, which will be merged into rawhide just before branching to f17 (somewhere around February 6). For instructions on how to work with that, please se [1].
Dne 30.1.2012 07:22, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi everybody,
I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora 17. You can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of gem from updates-testing.
Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other than F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your command line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17 template will be picked up automagically.
Any feedback is welcomed.
Vit
Hello,
Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new rubygems into rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8 for rawhide doesn't have this landed yet.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi Shawn, we have a special Koji target named f17-ruby, which will be merged into rawhide just before branching to f17 (somewhere around February 6). For instructions on how to work with that, please se [1].
Shawn, yes, please build your package against (and only) the tag mentioned above. You will save your/ours time with rebuild. Please make sure that all your dependencies are built there [1] prior building you packages.
Vit
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?start=0&tagID=199&order=-...
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 01/30/2012 05:19 PM +9:00:
Dne 30.1.2012 07:22, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi everybody,
I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora 17. You can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of gem from updates-testing.
Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other than F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your command line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17 template will be picked up automagically.
Any feedback is welcomed.
Vit
Hello,
Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new rubygems into rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8 for rawhide doesn't have this landed yet.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi Shawn, we have a special Koji target named f17-ruby, which will be merged into rawhide just before branching to f17 (somewhere around February 6). For instructions on how to work with that, please se [1].
Shawn, yes, please build your package against (and only) the tag mentioned above. You will save your/ours time with rebuild. Please make sure that all your dependencies are built there [1] prior building you packages.
Vit
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?start=0&tagID=199&order=-...
Note that if you update (existing) package on f15(updates-testing), f16(updates-testing), and f17-ruby, and without f17, you will get "broken upgrade path" report from bodhi until f17-ruby packages get tagged into f17, because bodhi checks f15(updates-testing), f16(updates-testing), f17 but not f17-ruby. If you don't want to get this noisy report, you should once build a package against f17, bump release, and next build against f17-ruby.
Regards, Mamoru
Dne 30.1.2012 14:57, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 01/30/2012 05:19 PM +9:00:
Dne 30.1.2012 07:22, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The guidelines seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current state (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like
%gemdir rather than %gem_dir. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi everybody,
I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora 17. You can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of gem from updates-testing.
Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other than F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your command line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17 template will be picked up automagically.
Any feedback is welcomed.
Vit
Hello,
Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new rubygems into rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8 for rawhide doesn't have this landed yet.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi Shawn, we have a special Koji target named f17-ruby, which will be merged into rawhide just before branching to f17 (somewhere around February 6). For instructions on how to work with that, please se [1].
Shawn, yes, please build your package against (and only) the tag mentioned above. You will save your/ours time with rebuild. Please make sure that all your dependencies are built there [1] prior building you packages.
Vit
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?start=0&tagID=199&order=-...
Note that if you update (existing) package on f15(updates-testing), f16(updates-testing), and f17-ruby, and without f17, you will get "broken upgrade path" report from bodhi until f17-ruby packages get tagged into f17, because bodhi checks f15(updates-testing), f16(updates-testing), f17 but not f17-ruby. If you don't want to get this noisy report, you should once build a package against f17, bump release, and next build against f17-ruby.
Regards, Mamoru
You are right, I did not realized that. Thank you for pointing it out. However, since the f17-ruby will be merged into rawhide approximately in a week, I don't think the build for f17 is worth of the effort (unless somebody beets me to take some action ;).
Vit
Dne 30.1.2012 15:14, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 30.1.2012 14:57, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 01/30/2012 05:19 PM +9:00:
Dne 30.1.2012 07:22, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): > Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The > guidelines > seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current > state > (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like > > %gemdir rather than %gem_dir. > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list > ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig Hi everybody,
I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora 17. You can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of gem from updates-testing.
Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other than F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your command line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17 template will be picked up automagically.
Any feedback is welcomed.
Vit
Hello,
Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new rubygems into rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8 for rawhide doesn't have this landed yet.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi Shawn, we have a special Koji target named f17-ruby, which will be merged into rawhide just before branching to f17 (somewhere around February 6). For instructions on how to work with that, please se [1].
Shawn, yes, please build your package against (and only) the tag mentioned above. You will save your/ours time with rebuild. Please make sure that all your dependencies are built there [1] prior building you packages.
Vit
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?start=0&tagID=199&order=-...
Note that if you update (existing) package on f15(updates-testing), f16(updates-testing), and f17-ruby, and without f17, you will get "broken upgrade path" report from bodhi until f17-ruby packages get tagged into f17, because bodhi checks f15(updates-testing), f16(updates-testing), f17 but not f17-ruby. If you don't want to get this noisy report, you should once build a package against f17, bump release, and next build against f17-ruby.
Regards, Mamoru
You are right, I did not realized that. Thank you for pointing it out. However, since the f17-ruby will be merged into rawhide approximately in a week, I don't think the build for f17 is worth of the effort (unless somebody beets me to take some action ;).
Vit _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
I have pushed the rubygem-gem2rpm into F15, F16. Enjoy.
Vit
Dne 7.2.2012 08:50, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 30.1.2012 15:14, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 30.1.2012 14:57, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 01/30/2012 05:19 PM +9:00:
Dne 30.1.2012 07:22, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
On Monday, January 23, 2012 05:31:32 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 13.1.2012 02:59, Michael Stahnke napsal(a): >> Has gem2rpm been updated for the Ruby 1.9 changes? The >> guidelines >> seem quite a bit different, an the gem2rpm macros in the current >> state >> (at least on EL6) don't map up. Things like >> >> %gemdir rather than %gem_dir. >> _______________________________________________ >> ruby-sig mailing list >> ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig > Hi everybody, > > I have released gem2rpm 0.8.0 today (with great help of Bohuslav > Kabrda), which supports new guidelines for Ruby 1.9.3 and Fedora > 17. You > can grab the gem from rubygems.org or get updated RPM version of > gem > from updates-testing. > > Please note that if you want to generate the .spec on some OS other > than > F17, you have to use "-t fedora-17-rawhide" parameter on your > command > line, which specifies the correct template. On F17, the F17 > template > will be picked up automagically. > > Any feedback is welcomed. > > > Vit Hello,
Will 1.9.3 be pushed into rawhide soon? I'm starting to push new rubygems into rawhide but am afaid of conflicting 1.9.3. I'm still based off 1.8 for rawhide doesn't have this landed yet.
> _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list > ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi Shawn, we have a special Koji target named f17-ruby, which will be merged into rawhide just before branching to f17 (somewhere around February 6). For instructions on how to work with that, please se [1].
Shawn, yes, please build your package against (and only) the tag mentioned above. You will save your/ours time with rebuild. Please make sure that all your dependencies are built there [1] prior building you packages.
Vit
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?start=0&tagID=199&order=-...
Note that if you update (existing) package on f15(updates-testing), f16(updates-testing), and f17-ruby, and without f17, you will get "broken upgrade path" report from bodhi until f17-ruby packages get tagged into f17, because bodhi checks f15(updates-testing), f16(updates-testing), f17 but not f17-ruby. If you don't want to get this noisy report, you should once build a package against f17, bump release, and next build against f17-ruby.
Regards, Mamoru
You are right, I did not realized that. Thank you for pointing it out. However, since the f17-ruby will be merged into rawhide approximately in a week, I don't think the build for f17 is worth of the effort (unless somebody beets me to take some action ;).
Vit _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
I have pushed the rubygem-gem2rpm into F15, F16. Enjoy.
I almost forgot to mention EPEL5 and EPEL6, which should land in a moment.
Vit _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org