Hi everybody,
You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these questions:
1) Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
2) For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is mandated by the infrastructure ticket template).
So what are your thoughts?
Vít
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311
This sounds interesting, and I'm curious to see how well all the gems build compared to the PyPI packages!
- Ken
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these questions:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
- For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group
again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is mandated by the infrastructure ticket template).
So what are your thoughts?
Vít
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
Dne 21.5.2016 v 04:20 Ken Dreyer napsal(a):
This sounds interesting, and I'm curious to see how well all the gems build compared to the PyPI packages!
I think that there should not be big issues. If you not running tests, there shouldn't be to much issues. So far there were just small changes to gem2rpm such as issues with empty URL.
So Ken (since you are the only person who responded so far), what is your feeling about the ruby-sig FAS group and group ownership of the packages?
Vít
[1] https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/issues/71
- Ken
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these questions:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
- For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group
again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is mandated by the infrastructure ticket template).
So what are your thoughts?
Vít
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi,
I will agree with you. +1. "1)" looks convenient.
Jun
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vít Ondruch" vondruch@redhat.com To: ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:57:37 PM Subject: ruby-sig FAS group and rubygems build in Copr
Hi everybody,
You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these questions:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
- For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group
again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is mandated by the infrastructure ticket template).
So what are your thoughts?
Vít
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5311
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if the package was owned by the group.
Ok, so if I asked for the SIG group, I would need to fill this template:
PkgDB2 allows FAS group to maintain packages in Fedora. Before applying for a new group, you should ask for a new mailing list or agree with the different people concerned to use the mailing list you already have. Once the mailing list is sorted out, please create a bugzilla account for this address. The list will be assigned or made cc to the bugs open against the package the group has ACLs for and will be added to the <pkg>-owner@fp.o alias.
IOW what ML should be used? Can we re-user ruby-sig ML? Wouldn't it increase the traffic too much (or may be there would be some traffic finally? ;)) ?
BTW I went ahead and asked for the group for Copr builds:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5329
Let me know if you are interested.
Vít
Dne 26.5.2016 v 09:32 Dominic Cleal napsal(a):
On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if the package was owned by the group.
I still stumbling across this.
So would anybody mind, if we moved generic ruby packaging discussion to newly created "ruby" ML and kept this ML for ruby-sig traffic, e.g. notifications from BZ etc ...
I am not sure if this is possible and who is actually owner of the ML etc, but let me know your preferences, so I might try to push this forward.
Vít
Dne 30.5.2016 v 15:48 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Ok, so if I asked for the SIG group, I would need to fill this template:
PkgDB2 allows FAS group to maintain packages in Fedora. Before applying for a new group, you should ask for a new mailing list or agree with the different people concerned to use the mailing list you already have. Once the mailing list is sorted out, please create a bugzilla account for this address. The list will be assigned or made cc to the bugs open against the package the group has ACLs for and will be added to the <pkg>-owner@fp.o alias.
IOW what ML should be used? Can we re-user ruby-sig ML? Wouldn't it increase the traffic too much (or may be there would be some traffic finally? ;)) ?
BTW I went ahead and asked for the group for Copr builds:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5329
Let me know if you are interested.
Vít
Dne 26.5.2016 v 09:32 Dominic Cleal napsal(a):
On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if the package was owned by the group.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
I had been right about submitting the ticket, but then I discovered:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5478 https://pagure.io/fedora-commops/issue/84
Since it is probably good idea to keep the things consistent, I requested ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig groups at the end:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6001
Please join the discussion in the ticket.
Vít
Dne 7.4.2017 v 15:33 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
I still stumbling across this.
So would anybody mind, if we moved generic ruby packaging discussion to newly created "ruby" ML and kept this ML for ruby-sig traffic, e.g. notifications from BZ etc ...
I am not sure if this is possible and who is actually owner of the ML etc, but let me know your preferences, so I might try to push this forward.
Vít
Dne 30.5.2016 v 15:48 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Ok, so if I asked for the SIG group, I would need to fill this template:
PkgDB2 allows FAS group to maintain packages in Fedora. Before applying for a new group, you should ask for a new mailing list or agree with the different people concerned to use the mailing list you already have. Once the mailing list is sorted out, please create a bugzilla account for this address. The list will be assigned or made cc to the bugs open against the package the group has ACLs for and will be added to the <pkg>-owner@fp.o alias.
IOW what ML should be used? Can we re-user ruby-sig ML? Wouldn't it increase the traffic too much (or may be there would be some traffic finally? ;)) ?
BTW I went ahead and asked for the group for Copr builds:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5329
Let me know if you are interested.
Vít
Dne 26.5.2016 v 09:32 Dominic Cleal napsal(a):
On 20/05/16 11:57, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
I think this would be a very good idea. I often come across small tasks to update or fix gems that I could help out with quickly and easily if the package was owned by the group.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 05/20/2016 06:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi everybody,
You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these questions:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
- For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group
again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is mandated by the infrastructure ticket template).
So what are your thoughts?
Vít
The FAS groups seem reasonable. Should reduce packaging overhead if all goes as intended.
Is the idea behind the copr repo to eventually remove the build from the main distro repositories? Or will they live side by side? (with different intents / workflows)
-Mo
Dne 27.5.2016 v 18:24 Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 05/20/2016 06:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi everybody,
You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these questions:
- Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could
make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some ACLs.
- For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group
again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is mandated by the infrastructure ticket template).
So what are your thoughts?
Vít
The FAS groups seem reasonable. Should reduce packaging overhead if all goes as intended.
Is the idea behind the copr repo to eventually remove the build from the main distro repositories? Or will they live side by side? (with different intents / workflows)
I don't think this has anything to do with the main repo. They will live side by side. I'd say that the level of support and assurance will be always different. E.g. the package in the main repo must undergone review, they are maintained by their human maintainer, while the packages in Copr will be converted to rpm by script, there won't be executed test suite, etc.
V.
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
the packages in Copr will be converted to rpm by script, there won't be executed test suite, etc.
We could make gem2rpm gems run the test suites non-fatally, ie tack "|| :" on to the end of the rspec or testrb invocations. That would at least allow us to see the test output, rather than not running it at all.
- Ken
Dne 29.5.2016 v 07:18 Ken Dreyer napsal(a):
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
the packages in Copr will be converted to rpm by script, there won't be executed test suite, etc.
We could make gem2rpm gems run the test suites non-fatally, ie tack "|| :" on to the end of the rspec or testrb invocations. That would at least allow us to see the test output, rather than not running it at all.
I am more worried about the heuristics necessary to properly guess the testing framework. But this is just the first step. Then you should guess the BR etc.
But feel free to send some initial PR ;)
V.
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dominic Cleal -
Jun Aruga -
Ken Dreyer -
Mo Morsi -
Vít Ondruch