----- Original Message -----

Dne 11.5.2012 15:30, Emanuel Rietveld napsal(a):

...

Hi,

I'm getting ready to start working on Rails 3.2.3 for F18 (maybe) and EPEL 6 (for sure).

Just wondering if anybody has already tried to package it and found any gotchas you could make me aware of. Maybe we can share work.

Emanuel _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Hi,

There are several dependencies of Rails 3.2 already submitted for review:

738746 - rubygem-coffee-script-source 738744 - rubygem-execjs 738742 - rubygem-coffee-script

Bohuslav Kabrda has prepared also other needed SRPMs as far as I know. So the stalled reviews is the biggest issue ATM I would say.

Yep, tried to package, no real problems. There were few issues I ran into from the packaging point of view: - Choosing a proper JavaScript runtime - all the ones provided as gems do lots of bundling, so they are not ideal. Fortunately, there is a "js" package (mozilla spidermonkey), that is already packaged in Fedora and can be used, so we can go with it (maybe we could make it a hard dependency of Rails until we provide some other engines that users can choose from?). - Another thing we should probably think of are "asset" dependencies (jquery-rails, coffee-rails, sass-rails), that should be added as Rails dependencies, because they are in the default Gemfile of new rails applications. - Last problem that I ran into is, that bundler by default installs newest versions of all gems when creating a new Rails application. Therefore I applied a patch (attached) to Railties, that prevent this by only searching local gems.

Vit _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

----- Original Message -----

On 05/14/2012 07:34 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:

...

----- Original Message -----

...

Dne 11.5.2012 15:30, Emanuel Rietveld napsal(a):

...

Hi,

I'm getting ready to start working on Rails 3.2.3 for F18 (maybe) and EPEL 6 (for sure).

Just wondering if anybody has already tried to package it and found any gotchas you could make me aware of. Maybe we can share work.

Emanuel _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

Hi,

There are several dependencies of Rails 3.2 already submitted for review:

738746 - rubygem-coffee-script-source 738744 - rubygem-execjs 738742 - rubygem-coffee-script

Bohuslav Kabrda has prepared also other needed SRPMs as far as I know. So the stalled reviews is the biggest issue ATM I would say.

Yep, tried to package, no real problems. There were few issues I ran into from the packaging point of view:

• Choosing a proper JavaScript runtime - all the ones provided as

gems do lots of bundling, so they are not ideal. Fortunately, there is a "js" package (mozilla spidermonkey), that is already packaged in Fedora and can be used, so we can go with it (maybe we could make it a hard dependency of Rails until we provide some other engines that users can choose from?).

It seems the server-side js dependency is pulled in via coffeescript, so an alternative solution would be to remove that dependency for the time being (since nodejs and execjs haven't made it into Fedora yet).

Yes, that is an alternative. I would however prefer doing them first, so that we don't have to modify the rails default application template (a modification, that we would throw away eventually). There are few reviews, that were open by Fotios Lindiakos ([1], [2], [3]), but I can't reach him, so it would probably be better to take them and finish them, so we can move on with this.

...

• Another thing we should probably think of are "asset"

dependencies (jquery-rails, coffee-rails, sass-rails), that should be added as Rails dependencies, because they are in the default Gemfile of new rails applications.

Could we remove these from the default Gemfile? This way the new rails project creation would be a minimal install, and developers could expand it from there.

Which Fedora version are you targeting the updated Rails rpms?

I would prefer leaving this as close to the upstream as possible. So don't remove anything, but make rails srpm depend on all the stuff (this means coffe-rails, jquery-rails, sass-rails, uglifier and js). Here are the SRPMS for the packages that are not in Fedora nor under review yet [4]. (They are not fine-tuned, so please be tolerant ;) ).

-Mo

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738744 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738746 [4] http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/rails-3.2.3/

Dne 16.5.2012 11:51, Emanuel Rietveld napsal(a):

On 05/14/2012 07:34 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:

...

Yep, tried to package, no real problems. There were few issues I ran into from the packaging point of view:

• Choosing a proper JavaScript runtime - all the ones provided as

gems do lots of bundling, so they are not ideal. Fortunately, there is a "js" package (mozilla spidermonkey), that is already packaged in Fedora and can be used, so we can go with it (maybe we could make it a hard dependency of Rails until we provide some other engines that users can choose from?).

• Another thing we should probably think of are "asset" dependencies

(jquery-rails, coffee-rails, sass-rails), that should be added as Rails dependencies, because they are in the default Gemfile of new rails applications.

• Last problem that I ran into is, that bundler by default installs

newest versions of all gems when creating a new Rails application. Therefore I applied a patch (attached) to Railties, that prevent this by only searching local gems.

Would you mind putting up some WIP .src.rpms ?

Thanks

Kind Regards,

Emanuel _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

You have probably skipped the last link in this reply: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2012-May/001004.html

Vit