Hello,
I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby package by issuing:
# sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17
Please note that installation of fully versioned rubygems is *mandatory* ATM and you have to *uninstall rubygems* package prior installing this test release to avoid version conflicts. This will be fixes as soon as final release of Ruby will be available.
Vit
Hi guys,
I have updated the repository to the officially released Rugy 1.9.3-p0. Installation should be now as simple as:
# yum install ruby
Vit
Dne 4.10.2011 16:23, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hello,
I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby package by issuing:
# sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17
Please note that installation of fully versioned rubygems is *mandatory* ATM and you have to *uninstall rubygems* package prior installing this test release to avoid version conflicts. This will be fixes as soon as final release of Ruby will be available.
Vit
[1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/ruby_1.9.3.repo _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:41:47 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
I have updated the repository to the officially released Rugy 1.9.3-p0. Installation should be now as simple as:
# yum install ruby
Vit
Hi Vit,
If I may request, can we have the Ruby/Rubygem packaging guidelines updated for 1.9.x and compat for 1.8.x?
I have a lot of rubygems to package and I'm unsure if some of these will work for 1.9 and RSPec 2.x standards.
This is in relation to getting OpenNebula 3.x in for Fedora 17 timeframe.
Thanks, Shawn.
Dne 4.10.2011 16:23, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hello,
I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby package by issuing:
# sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17
Please note that installation of fully versioned rubygems is *mandatory* ATM and you have to *uninstall rubygems* package prior installing this test release to avoid version conflicts. This will be fixes as soon as final release of Ruby will be available.
Vit
[1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/ruby_1.9.3.repo _______________________________________________ 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 6.11.2011 06:55, Shawn Starr napsal(a):
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:41:47 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi guys,
I have updated the repository to the officially released Rugy 1.9.3-p0. Installation should be now as simple as:
# yum install ruby
Vit
Hi Vit,
If I may request, can we have the Ruby/Rubygem packaging guidelines updated for 1.9.x and compat for 1.8.x?
I have a lot of rubygems to package and I'm unsure if some of these will work for 1.9 and RSPec 2.x standards.
This is in relation to getting OpenNebula 3.x in for Fedora 17 timeframe.
Thanks, Shawn.
Hi Shawn,
Updated packaging guidelines are definitely on my TODO list, I just did not get the chance yet, since the Ruby package itself is still evolving.
Nevertheless, the RSpec 2.x is independent topic from Ruby 1.9. Please go ahead and use RSpec 2.x for all your packages. It should not be any issue.
Vit
Dne 4.10.2011 16:23, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hello,
I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby package by issuing:
# sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17
Please note that installation of fully versioned rubygems is *mandatory* ATM and you have to *uninstall rubygems* package prior installing this test release to avoid version conflicts. This will be fixes as soon as final release of Ruby will be available.
Vit
[1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/ruby_1.9.3.repo _______________________________________________ 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
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi,
I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in future Fedoras. The main changes are:
- Install RubyGems library outside of Ruby directory structure into /usr/share/rubygems folder. This should allows us to share RubyGems among different Ruby implementations. - Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory. - "gem install" now installs gems into share/gems directory while their binary extensions goes into lib{64}/gems directory. This (in theory) allows to install binary gems side by side without conflicts. - RubyGems has now its own -devel subpackage, which will be need in the future for build of RPM packages. - Enhanced macros.ruby and macros.rubygems. - All tests are green now (credits goes to bkabrda).
The detailed changelog you can find at GitHub repo [1]. If you have previously installed Ruby 1.9.3 from my testing repository, you should be able to simply do:
# yum update ruby
However, please note that due to directory structure changes, you might need reinstall all your gems.
And as always, any feedback is appreciated.
Vit
On 12/14/2011 08:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in future Fedoras. The main changes are:
Hey Vit, a couple questions came up RE: Ruby 1.9.3 at today's cloud-sig meeting
- what changes to packaging guidelines if any will ruby 1.9.3 entail
- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going to file a feature?
- to what extent will rubygems need repackaging/rebuilding/mass rebuilding? how to best go about proceeding w/ that
Thanks, -Mo
Dne 16.12.2011 21:20, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 12/14/2011 08:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in future Fedoras. The main changes are:
Hey Vit, a couple questions came up RE: Ruby 1.9.3 at today's cloud-sig meeting
- what changes to packaging guidelines if any will ruby 1.9.3 entail
There will be definitely new packaging guidelines. I hope we will be able to prepare the guidelines draft before end of the week. Some of the changes that we are planing are:
* New ruby(abi) constant version * ruby-devel newly provides some RPM macros, typically used by non-gem packages. * rubygems-devel package now provides macros required by gem install (instead of querying ruby each time) * New location for RubyGems and their binary extensions * Deprecation of ruby- subpackages * Encourage execution of test suite, however discourage of using Rake for such purpose
- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going to
file a feature?
We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature proposal [1] and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval before Christmas.
- to what extent will rubygems need repackaging/rebuilding/mass
rebuilding? how to best go about proceeding w/ that
We have already tested to rebuild all ruby packages we were able to found (327 in total) and for most of them, we have already prepared patches. We were not able to rebuild 14 of them yet (but we'll try to reduce this number further). Nevertheless, these packages are typically un-maintained for longer period of time.
Thanks, -Mo
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going
to file a feature?
We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature proposal [1] and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval before Christmas.
How will Ruby 1.8 be handled? Will we keep a ruby-1.8 package around?
Dne 19.12.2011 16:26, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going
to file a feature?
We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature proposal [1] and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval before Christmas.
How will Ruby 1.8 be handled? Will we keep a ruby-1.8 package around?
No, sorry, I don't plan it. There is no reason except nostalgia. You can use JRuby if you really need.
Vit
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 04:40:46PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 19.12.2011 16:26, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going
to file a feature?
We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature proposal [1] and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval before Christmas.
How will Ruby 1.8 be handled? Will we keep a ruby-1.8 package around?
No, sorry, I don't plan it. There is no reason except nostalgia. You can use JRuby if you really need.
I was thinking that, similarly to how Python 2.6 and 2.7 were handled, we could have a compatibility RPM for people who depend on 1.8, such as myself for my downstream projects.
Dne 19.12.2011 16:51, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 04:40:46PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 19.12.2011 16:26, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going
to file a feature?
We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature proposal [1] and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval before Christmas.
How will Ruby 1.8 be handled? Will we keep a ruby-1.8 package around?
No, sorry, I don't plan it. There is no reason except nostalgia. You can use JRuby if you really need.
I was thinking that, similarly to how Python 2.6 and 2.7 were handled, we could have a compatibility RPM for people who depend on 1.8, such as myself for my downstream projects.
May be you should provide more details for what reason you cannot use Ruby 1.9.3 to help me understand. And believe me, we went through more than 320 packages in Fedora to make sure they are at least buildable with Ruby 1.9.3, if they had properly executed test suited, there is also high chance that these packages will work. There is less then 15 packages from the total amount which are still troubling us but these packages are typically obsolete anyway (take sdljava as an example).
Vit
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:06:23PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I was thinking that, similarly to how Python 2.6 and 2.7 were handled, we could have a compatibility RPM for people who depend on 1.8, such as myself for my downstream projects.
May be you should provide more details for what reason you cannot use Ruby 1.9.3 to help me understand. And believe me, we went through more than 320 packages in Fedora to make sure they are at least buildable with Ruby 1.9.3, if they had properly executed test suited, there is also high chance that these packages will work. There is less then 15 packages from the total amount which are still troubling us but these packages are typically obsolete anyway (take sdljava as an example).
I'm just being conservative about it. Since there's so much that's changed from 1.8 to 1.9 I'd like to see a transition period where both are available before the older is completely phased out.
My main downstream project is based on 1.8 (since that's what's in RHEL and will be for a while) so I'd like to see at least two releases with 1.8 to give me time to transition my work to 1.9 completely.
Dne 19.12.2011 17:18, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:06:23PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I was thinking that, similarly to how Python 2.6 and 2.7 were handled, we could have a compatibility RPM for people who depend on 1.8, such as myself for my downstream projects.
May be you should provide more details for what reason you cannot use Ruby 1.9.3 to help me understand. And believe me, we went through more than 320 packages in Fedora to make sure they are at least buildable with Ruby 1.9.3, if they had properly executed test suited, there is also high chance that these packages will work. There is less then 15 packages from the total amount which are still troubling us but these packages are typically obsolete anyway (take sdljava as an example).
I'm just being conservative about it. Since there's so much that's changed from 1.8 to 1.9 I'd like to see a transition period where both are available before the older is completely phased out.
My main downstream project is based on 1.8 (since that's what's in RHEL and will be for a while) so I'd like to see at least two releases with 1.8 to give me time to transition my work to 1.9 completely.
May be you should start to be worried about RHEL 7.
Honestly, if you are developing for current RHEL, then it is best to develop on RHEL. If you are developing for future RHEL, then it is best to develop on Rawhide. However, this is not discussion about RHEL but about Fedora.
Vit
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:30:39PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
My main downstream project is based on 1.8 (since that's what's in RHEL and will be for a while) so I'd like to see at least two releases with 1.8 to give me time to transition my work to 1.9 completely.
May be you should start to be worried about RHEL 7.
I am looking to the future and especially to Ruby 1.9. :)
Honestly, if you are developing for current RHEL, then it is best to develop on RHEL. If you are developing for future RHEL, then it is best to develop on Rawhide. However, this is not discussion about RHEL but about Fedora.
That's already the process. As I said, I'm just being conservative about the transition; i.e., the idea of "we're going to completely dump LANG vX for LANG vY with this release" (when there are incompatibilities between X and Y) gives me chills. ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl L. Pierce" dpierce@redhat.com To: "Ruby SIG mailing list" ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 5:45:19 PM Subject: Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:30:39PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
My main downstream project is based on 1.8 (since that's what's in RHEL and will be for a while) so I'd like to see at least two releases with 1.8 to give me time to transition my work to 1.9 completely.
May be you should start to be worried about RHEL 7.
I am looking to the future and especially to Ruby 1.9. :)
Honestly, if you are developing for current RHEL, then it is best to develop on RHEL. If you are developing for future RHEL, then it is best to develop on Rawhide. However, this is not discussion about RHEL but about Fedora.
That's already the process. As I said, I'm just being conservative about the transition; i.e., the idea of "we're going to completely dump LANG vX for LANG vY with this release" (when there are incompatibilities between X and Y) gives me chills. ;)
There is a remote possibility (and I put the stress on "remote") that a software collection with Ruby 1.8.7 and a subset of Rubygems will go into Fedora 17 (see [1] for information on software collections). However, maintaining software collections is a huge overhead and we should focus on the new stuff more - like getting newest versions into Rawhide and encourage everyone to use them (and actually use them ourselves). Ruby 1.8.7 will be reaching EOL in year and half [2] and only a half of year from that is normal maintenance, so it's time to move on.
[1] http://baseos.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com/Stack/ISVDeveloperGuide [2] http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/2094567
Regards, Bohuslav.
-- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Dne 20.12.2011 07:51, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl L. Pierce"dpierce@redhat.com To: "Ruby SIG mailing list"ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 5:45:19 PM Subject: Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:30:39PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
My main downstream project is based on 1.8 (since that's what's in RHEL and will be for a while) so I'd like to see at least two releases with 1.8 to give me time to transition my work to 1.9 completely.
May be you should start to be worried about RHEL 7.
I am looking to the future and especially to Ruby 1.9. :)
Honestly, if you are developing for current RHEL, then it is best to develop on RHEL. If you are developing for future RHEL, then it is best to develop on Rawhide. However, this is not discussion about RHEL but about Fedora.
That's already the process. As I said, I'm just being conservative about the transition; i.e., the idea of "we're going to completely dump LANG vX for LANG vY with this release" (when there are incompatibilities between X and Y) gives me chills. ;)
There is a remote possibility (and I put the stress on "remote") that a software collection with Ruby 1.8.7 and a subset of Rubygems will go into Fedora 17 (see [1] for information on software collections). However, maintaining software collections is a huge overhead and we should focus on the new stuff more - like getting newest versions into Rawhide and encourage everyone to use them (and actually use them ourselves). Ruby 1.8.7 will be reaching EOL in year and half [2] and only a half of year from that is normal maintenance, so it's time to move on.
[1] http://baseos.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com/Stack/ISVDeveloperGuide
All Fedorians could use following links:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-17203/scl-utils-20111214... https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/scl-utils
Vit
[2] http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/2094567
Regards, Bohuslav.
-- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
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
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 01:51:41AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
There is a remote possibility (and I put the stress on "remote") that a software collection with Ruby 1.8.7 and a subset of Rubygems will go into Fedora 17 (see [1] for information on software collections). However, maintaining software collections is a huge overhead and we should focus on the new stuff more - like getting newest versions into Rawhide and encourage everyone to use them (and actually use them ourselves). Ruby 1.8.7 will be reaching EOL in year and half [2] and only a half of year from that is normal maintenance, so it's time to move on.
I agree. All I'm arguing for is a transition period rather than a hard cutover.
Thanks for these rpms. I've been trying to get the 1.9.3 srpm to rebuild onto EL6 and I've been having some issues. It looks to be centered around autoconf and m4 (surprise ensues). I can cleanly compile ruby 1.9.3 outside the spec file (without patches, macros etc) but once I attempt to build within the spec framework it fails. Would anybody happen to have any pointers?
stahnma
Dne 24.12.2011 01:54, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Thanks for these rpms. I've been trying to get the 1.9.3 srpm to rebuild onto EL6 and I've been having some issues. It looks to be centered around autoconf and m4 (surprise ensues). I can cleanly compile ruby 1.9.3 outside the spec file (without patches, macros etc) but once I attempt to build within the spec framework it fails. Would anybody happen to have any pointers?
stahnma
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi,
Thank you for pointing it out. I found that there was typo in RubyGems patch, which is now fixed in git [1]. The build in Koji works just fine now [2]. I also successfully tried build for RHEL-6 for all supported platforms.
Vit
[1] https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec/commit/b51d19470e704c9460c0c55ebf725cf2d7... [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3613876
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 24.12.2011 01:54, Michael Stahnke napsal(a):
Thanks for these rpms. I've been trying to get the 1.9.3 srpm to rebuild onto EL6 and I've been having some issues. It looks to be centered around autoconf and m4 (surprise ensues). I can cleanly compile ruby 1.9.3 outside the spec file (without patches, macros etc) but once I attempt to build within the spec framework it fails. Would anybody happen to have any pointers?
stahnma
ruby-sig mailing listruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.orghttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi,
Thank you for pointing it out. I found that there was typo in RubyGems patch, which is now fixed in git [1]. The build in Koji works just fine now [2]. I also successfully tried build for RHEL-6 for all supported platforms.
Vit
Awesome. Thanks
[1] https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec/commit/b51d19470e704c9460c0c55ebf725cf2d7... [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3613876
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/20/2011 01:06 AM +9:00:
Dne 19.12.2011 16:51, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 04:40:46PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 19.12.2011 16:26, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
- what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going
to file a feature?
We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature proposal [1] and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval before Christmas.
How will Ruby 1.8 be handled? Will we keep a ruby-1.8 package around?
No, sorry, I don't plan it. There is no reason except nostalgia. You can use JRuby if you really need.
I was thinking that, similarly to how Python 2.6 and 2.7 were handled, we could have a compatibility RPM for people who depend on 1.8, such as myself for my downstream projects.
May be you should provide more details for what reason you cannot use Ruby 1.9.3 to help me understand. And believe me, we went through more than 320 packages in Fedora to make sure they are at least buildable with Ruby 1.9.3, if they had properly executed test suited, there is also high chance that these packages will work. There is less then 15 packages from the total amount which are still troubling us but these packages are typically obsolete anyway (take sdljava as an example).
Vit
One of the biggest changes between ruby 1.8.x and ruby 1.9.x is how ruby handles strings, in non-ascii environments.
Small example
[tasaka1@localhost ~]$ rpm -q ruby ruby-1.8.7.352-3.fc17.i686 [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ ruby -e "puts 'あいう'.size" 9
v.s.
<mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby ruby-1.9.3.0-2.fc17.i686 <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# ruby -e "puts 'あいう'.size" 3
This diffecence may not be visible in ASCII world. However when dealing with multibyte characters this change can be impact.
Regards, Mamoru
Hello,
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/14/2011 10:33 PM +9:00:
Hi,
I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in future Fedoras.
First of all, I appreciate your work on ruby 193 packaging. Then I leave some quick comments now.
The main changes are:
- Install RubyGems library outside of Ruby directory structure into /usr/share/rubygems folder. This should allows us to share RubyGems among different Ruby implementations.
- Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory.
I don't this behavior is right. If gems installed by regular users goes into under their home directory, so should be on root because root is one of the users and we should prevent root's installing gems under root's home directory.
- "gem install" now installs gems into share/gems directory while their binary extensions goes into lib{64}/gems directory. This (in theory) allows to install binary gems side by side without conflicts.
- RubyGems has now its own -devel subpackage, which will be need in the future for build of RPM packages.
- Enhanced macros.ruby and macros.rubygems.
- All tests are green now (credits goes to bkabrda).
The detailed changelog you can find at GitHub repo [1].
Some packaging issue. - Please check directory ownership issue. - For example, the directory %{ruby_libarchdir}/digest/ or so are not owned by any packages. - The directory %_libdir/pkgconfig should not be owned by ruby-devel. - The dependency of -tcltk subpackage on -libs package should be %_isa specific. - Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now? - It seems that %{ruby_libdir}/rbconfig should belong to rubygems, not ruby-libs. - build.log just shows: -------------------------------------------------- compiling main.c compiling dmydln.c compiling dmyencoding.c compiling version.c -------------------------------------------------- or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific compilation flags are passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that we can see what commands are actually executed during build. - Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also "cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults" in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p". - Consider to move mkmf.rb to ruby-devel: -------------------------------------------------- <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby ruby-1.9.3.0-2.fc17.i686 <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby-devel package ruby-devel is not installed <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# ruby -e "require 'mkmf'" mkmf.rb can't find header files for ruby at /usr/share/include/ruby.h -------------------------------------------------- - rubygems rpm contains "bigdecimal-1.1.0.gemspec io-console-0.3.gemspec json-1.5.4.gemspec minitest-2.5.1.gemspec"?? - At least these components should have its own subpackage rpms. - Also, for example the latest minitest is 2.9.1. rubygems (or rubygem-minitest built from ruby.... too complicated) should use latest minitest (and also please re-check components bundled in ruby - I hope ruby upstream will again unbundle these components ... this is again too complicated ..) - include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately packaged on Fedora. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432 Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma? If not, what prevents it?
If you have previously installed Ruby
1.9.3 from my testing repository, you should be able to simply do: # yum update ruby However, please note that due to directory structure changes, you might need reinstall all your gems. And as always, any feedback is appreciated.
Vit
Regards, Mamoru
----- Original Message -----
From: "TASAKA Mamoru" mtasaka@fedoraproject.org To: "Ruby SIG mailing list" ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:26:20 PM Subject: Re: Ruby 1.9.3 testing repository
Hello,
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/14/2011 10:33 PM +9:00:
Hi,
I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in future Fedoras.
First of all, I appreciate your work on ruby 193 packaging. Then I leave some quick comments now.
The main changes are:
- Install RubyGems library outside of Ruby directory structure into
/usr/share/rubygems folder. This should allows us to share RubyGems among different Ruby implementations.
- Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems
installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory.
I don't this behavior is right. If gems installed by regular users goes into under their home directory, so should be on root because root is one of the users and we should prevent root's installing gems under root's home directory.
I don't quite understand what you are saying - in one sentence you say that we should install gems in root home because root is just another user and then you say that we should prevent it. Personally, I think the Vit's proposed behaviour is right, as root is not (should not) be used for development/running applications and therefore there is no need for gem directory in his home. At the same time, root should be able to install non-rpm gems if he wants to make their new/unpackaged versions available system-wide.
- "gem install" now installs gems into share/gems directory while
their binary extensions goes into lib{64}/gems directory. This (in theory) allows to install binary gems side by side without conflicts.
- RubyGems has now its own -devel subpackage, which will be need in
the future for build of RPM packages.
- Enhanced macros.ruby and macros.rubygems.
- All tests are green now (credits goes to bkabrda).
The detailed changelog you can find at GitHub repo [1].
Some packaging issue.
- Please check directory ownership issue.
not owned by any packages.
- For example, the directory %{ruby_libarchdir}/digest/ or so are
ruby-devel.
- The directory %_libdir/pkgconfig should not be owned by
- The dependency of -tcltk subpackage on -libs package should be
%_isa specific.
- Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now?
- It seems that %{ruby_libdir}/rbconfig should belong to rubygems,
not ruby-libs.
Why? It contains information about ruby, not about rubygems.
- build.log just shows:
compiling main.c compiling dmydln.c compiling dmyencoding.c compiling version.c
or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific compilation flags are passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that we can see what commands are actually executed during build.
- Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also "cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults" in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p".
- Consider to move mkmf.rb to ruby-devel:
<mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby ruby-1.9.3.0-2.fc17.i686 <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby-devel package ruby-devel is not installed <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# ruby -e "require 'mkmf'" mkmf.rb can't find header files for ruby at /usr/share/include/ruby.h
- rubygems rpm contains "bigdecimal-1.1.0.gemspec
io-console-0.3.gemspec json-1.5.4.gemspec minitest-2.5.1.gemspec"??
- At least these components should have its own subpackage rpms.
- Also, for example the latest minitest is 2.9.1. rubygems (or
rubygem-minitest built from ruby.... too complicated) should use latest minitest (and also please re-check components bundled in ruby - I hope ruby upstream will again unbundle these components ... this is again too complicated ..)
There has already been a proposal to gemify standard library: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/StdlibGem - the question is, when it will really happen. For now, I agree we should look into moving these gems into subpackages (Is it even possible/feasible? Will everything work if we update them to newer versions?) and _consider_ it.
- include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately packaged on Fedora. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432 Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma? If not, what prevents it?
If you have previously installed Ruby
1.9.3 from my testing repository, you should be able to simply do: # yum update ruby However, please note that due to directory structure changes, you might need reinstall all your gems. And as always, any feedback is appreciated.
Vit
Regards, Mamoru
Regards, Bohuslav.
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hello:
Bohuslav Kabrda wrote, at 12/19/2011 06:06 PM +9:00:
- Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems
installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory.
I don't this behavior is right. If gems installed by regular users goes into under their home directory, so should be on root because root is one of the users and we should prevent root's installing gems under root's home directory.
I don't quite understand what you are saying - in one sentence you say that we should install gems in root home because root is just another user and then you say that we should prevent it. Personally, I think the Vit's proposed behaviour is right, as root is not (should not) be used for development/running applications and therefore there is no need for gem directory in his home. At the same time, root should be able to install non-rpm gems if he wants to make their new/unpackaged versions available system-wide.
Note this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513048#c9 CVE-2007-0469, still open)
(Although I left some comment that I don't agree on that bug) security responsible team complains about _default_ behavior of installing system-wide even with root. (Again although I left some comments that I don't agree with this) I think changing _default_ behavior between root and normal users just introduces unneeded confusion.
- It seems that %{ruby_libdir}/rbconfig should belong to rubygems,
not ruby-libs.
Why? It contains information about ruby, not about rubygems.
It seems that I got confused between /usr/share/ruby/rbconfig and /usr/share/rubygems/rbconfig ... however now why they both exist? (ruby-18 does not have /usr/share/ruby/rbconfig and rubygems 1.8.11 with ruby-18 contains /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rbconfig)
Note that /usr/lib/ruby/rbconfig.rb is there and "RbConfig" means this > Vit
- rubygems rpm contains "bigdecimal-1.1.0.gemspec io-console-0.3.gemspec json-1.5.4.gemspec minitest-2.5.1.gemspec"??
rubygem-minitest built from ruby.... too complicated) should use latest minitest (and also please re-check components bundled in ruby - I hope ruby upstream will again unbundle these components ... this is again too complicated ..)
- At least these components should have its own subpackage rpms.
- Also, for example the latest minitest is 2.9.1. rubygems (or
There has already been a proposal to gemify standard library: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/StdlibGem
- the question is, when it will really happen. For now, I agree we should look into moving these gems into subpackages
(Is it even possible/feasible? Will everything work if we update them to newer versions?) and _consider_ it.
If newer versions don't work, then it is a bug on such submodule, as people is always able to upgrade individual submodule by themselves. (Well, perl approach may be applicable).
Regards, Mamoru
Dne 19.12.2011 15:48, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
Hello:
Bohuslav Kabrda wrote, at 12/19/2011 06:06 PM +9:00:
- Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems
installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory.
I don't this behavior is right. If gems installed by regular users goes into under their home directory, so should be on root because root is one of the users and we should prevent root's installing gems under root's home directory.
I don't quite understand what you are saying - in one sentence you say that we should install gems in root home because root is just another user and then you say that we should prevent it. Personally, I think the Vit's proposed behaviour is right, as root is not (should not) be used for development/running applications and therefore there is no need for gem directory in his home. At the same time, root should be able to install non-rpm gems if he wants to make their new/unpackaged versions available system-wide.
Note this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513048#c9 CVE-2007-0469, still open)
(Although I left some comment that I don't agree on that bug) security responsible team complains about _default_ behavior of installing system-wide even with root. (Again although I left some comments that I don't agree with this) I think changing _default_ behavior between root and normal users just introduces unneeded confusion.
Let me rephrase what I said:
"If you are logged in as a root, and do "# gem install foo", the gem is going to be installed into the /usr/local directory"
That means it does not conflict with any gems installed by RPM nor with any other stuff installed by RPM.
Vit
Dne 17.12.2011 19:26, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
Hello,
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/14/2011 10:33 PM +9:00:
Hi,
I have uploaded updated version of Ruby 1.9.3 packages into my testing repository. They are probably very close to the shape of Ruby I'd like to see in future Fedoras.
First of all, I appreciate your work on ruby 193 packaging. Then I leave some quick comments now.
Thank you for your great feedback!
The main changes are:
- Install RubyGems library outside of Ruby directory structure into
/usr/share/rubygems folder. This should allows us to share RubyGems among different Ruby implementations.
- Installed gems are now divided into different directories. Gems
installed by regular user goes into his/her home directory, gems installed by root goes to /usr/local/ directory, while the gems installed by RPM will go into /usr directory.
I don't this behavior is right. If gems installed by regular users goes into under their home directory, so should be on root because root is one of the users and we should prevent root's installing gems under root's home directory.
root user is exceptional anyway. Even his home directory is not in the same location as other users have. So I believe that this behavior is justifiable, although not everyone will necessarily agree. Preferred way of installing gem is using RPM anyway. Moreover, if you really like to install gems into root's home directory, you have still plenty of options such as GEM_HOME or --install-dir.
- "gem install" now installs gems into share/gems directory while
their binary extensions goes into lib{64}/gems directory. This (in theory) allows to install binary gems side by side without conflicts.
- RubyGems has now its own -devel subpackage, which will be need in
the future for build of RPM packages.
- Enhanced macros.ruby and macros.rubygems.
- All tests are green now (credits goes to bkabrda).
The detailed changelog you can find at GitHub repo [1].
Some packaging issue.
- Please check directory ownership issue.
- For example, the directory %{ruby_libarchdir}/digest/ or so are
not owned by any packages.
- The directory %_libdir/pkgconfig should not be owned by ruby-devel.
- The dependency of -tcltk subpackage on -libs package should be %_isa
specific.
These are all valid points. I'll fix them.
- Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now?
Are you referring to my TODO [2]? Since this is really tricky. I agree that, if I claim that the RI documentation is platform specific, it should go into the %{_libdir}, on the other side this is bug IMO and I believe that it was also agreed by upstrem.
- It seems that %{ruby_libdir}/rbconfig should belong to rubygems, not
ruby-libs.
If you check RubyGems upstream [3], you'll see that it contains only the "datadir.rb" file, therefore it means the "obsolete.rb" is own by Ruby ant herefore the rbconfig dir has to be owned by Ruby, not RubyGems. Also, RbConfig is clearly feature or Ruby. However, according to what I mentioned above, I have to exclude "datadir.rb" from Ruby and include in RubyGems package.
- build.log just shows:
compiling main.c compiling dmydln.c compiling dmyencoding.c compiling version.c
or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific compilation flags are passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that we can see what commands are actually executed during build.
You are right that build of 1.8.7 was more verbose. However I can't see any difference in configuration or make flags. I'll try to take a look into it but I can't promise.
- Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also "cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults" in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p".
Is it required at all? It is not used even in %install of 1.8.7, but there might be different reason. However there is guideline [5], so it is probably good idea.
- Consider to move mkmf.rb to ruby-devel:
<mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby ruby-1.9.3.0-2.fc17.i686 <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby-devel package ruby-devel is not installed <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# ruby -e "require 'mkmf'" mkmf.rb can't find header files for ruby at /usr/share/include/ruby.h
Actually this is interesting idea. Never thought about it.
- rubygems rpm contains "bigdecimal-1.1.0.gemspec io-console-0.3.gemspec json-1.5.4.gemspec minitest-2.5.1.gemspec"??
- At least these components should have its own subpackage rpms.
- Also, for example the latest minitest is 2.9.1. rubygems (or
rubygem-minitest built from ruby.... too complicated) should use latest minitest (and also please re-check components bundled in ruby - I hope ruby upstream will again unbundle these components ... this is again too complicated ..)
Yes, it is on my TODO list, however not a big priority. I believe that we can work on it later and can't see any immediate problem with that.
- include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately packaged on Fedora. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432 Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma? If not, what prevents it?
This is though. I remember this lengthy discussion [4] about (not only) oniguruma and from that, I had the feeling that the upstream version is not compatible with Ruby. Moreover, I checked the latest sources from Fedora and from Ruby and they differs. I cannot imagine to patch Ruby to support the upstream library, although we can try to open request upstream? What do you think?
If you have previously installed Ruby
1.9.3 from my testing repository, you should be able to simply do: # yum update ruby However, please note that due to directory structure changes, you might need reinstall all your gems. And as always, any feedback is appreciated.
Vit
Regards, Mamoru
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
[2] https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec/blob/master/ruby.spec#L195-199 [3] https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/tree/master/lib/rbconfig [4] http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/4239 [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
Hello, again:
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/19/2011 09:43 PM +9:00:
- Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now?
Are you referring to my TODO [2]?
Exactly.
Since this is really tricky. I agree that, if I claim that the RI documentation is platform specific, it should go into the %{_libdir}, on the other side this is bug IMO and I believe that it was also agreed by upstrem.
I don't think ri documents should be arch-dependent, either. The problem is that currently they really are. Someone can say "so for now they must be moved to %_libdir until bugs gets fixed", others can say it need not.
- build.log just shows:
compiling main.c compiling dmydln.c compiling dmyencoding.c compiling version.c
or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific compilation flags are passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that we can see what commands are actually executed during build.
You are right that build of 1.8.7 was more verbose. However I can't see any difference in configuration or make flags. I'll try to take a look into it but I can't promise.
- Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also
"cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults" in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p".
Is it required at all? It is not used even in %install of 1.8.7, but there might be different reason. However there is guideline [5], so it is probably good idea.
Please check if timestamps on installed files are correctly kept (showing verbose build log will also make it easier to check this).
- include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately
packaged on Fedora. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432 Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma? If not, what prevents it?
This is though. I remember this lengthy discussion [4] about (not only) oniguruma and from that,
This discussion seems to be about using origuruma with ruby 1.8.x.
I had the feeling that the upstream version is not compatible with Ruby. Moreover, I checked the latest sources from Fedora and from Ruby and they differs. I cannot imagine to patch Ruby to support the upstream library, although we can try to open request upstream? What do you think?
Well, - First of all I don't know where origuruma upstream is working. If they (oniguruma upstream) make changes on origuruma bundled in ruby tarball, they should also update origuruma tarball and release new one. - Bundling such external software like origuruma is almost forbidden on Fedora (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 : why rubygem-passenger cannot be in Fedora currently) and we should advise ruby upstream to use external oniguruma (or to add support to use external oniguruma).
Regards, Mamoru
Dne 19.12.2011 16:35, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
Hello, again:
Vít Ondruch wrote, at 12/19/2011 09:43 PM +9:00:
- Maybe ri directory should be moved to %_libdir/ri for now?
Are you referring to my TODO [2]?
Exactly.
Since this is really tricky. I agree that, if I claim that the RI documentation is platform specific, it should go into the %{_libdir}, on the other side this is bug IMO and I believe that it was also agreed by upstrem.
I don't think ri documents should be arch-dependent, either. The problem is that currently they really are. Someone can say "so for now they must be moved to %_libdir until bugs gets fixed", others can say it need not.
- build.log just shows:
compiling main.c compiling dmydln.c compiling dmyencoding.c compiling version.c
or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific compilation flags are passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that we can see what commands are actually executed during build.
You are right that build of 1.8.7 was more verbose. However I can't see any difference in configuration or make flags. I'll try to take a look into it but I can't promise.
- Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also
"cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults" in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p".
Is it required at all? It is not used even in %install of 1.8.7, but there might be different reason. However there is guideline [5], so it is probably good idea.
Please check if timestamps on installed files are correctly kept (showing verbose build log will also make it easier to check this).
- include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately
packaged on Fedora. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432 Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma? If not, what prevents it?
This is though. I remember this lengthy discussion [4] about (not only) oniguruma and from that,
This discussion seems to be about using origuruma with ruby 1.8.x.
I had the feeling that the upstream version is not compatible with Ruby. Moreover, I checked the latest sources from Fedora and from Ruby and they differs. I cannot imagine to patch Ruby to support the upstream library, although we can try to open request upstream? What do you think?
Well,
- First of all I don't know where origuruma upstream is working. If
they (oniguruma upstream) make changes on origuruma bundled in ruby tarball, they should also update origuruma tarball and release new one.
- Bundling such external software like origuruma is almost forbidden
on Fedora (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 : why rubygem-passenger cannot be in Fedora currently) and we should advise ruby upstream to use external oniguruma (or to add support to use external oniguruma).
I asked ruby-core about this matter, if you like to join discussion: http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/vframe.rb/ruby/ruby-core/41721?41672-41...
Vit
Regards, Mamoru
ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
I have pushed to my GitHub account updated version of .spec file which should reflect the most of your comments.
Dne 19.12.2011 13:43, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 17.12.2011 19:26, TASAKA Mamoru napsal(a):
- build.log just shows:
compiling main.c compiling dmydln.c compiling dmyencoding.c compiling version.c
or so, It is hard to check from this log if Fedora specific compilation flags are passed correctly or not. Please make build.log more verbose so that we can see what commands are actually executed during build.
You are right that build of 1.8.7 was more verbose. However I can't see any difference in configuration or make flags. I'll try to take a look into it but I can't promise.
I found the option, so the build.log should be verbose as it used to be.
- Isn't COPY="cp -p" needed also on %install? Also "cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{rubygems_dir}/rubygems/defaults" in %spec file should be replaced by "cp -p".
Is it required at all? It is not used even in %install of 1.8.7, but there might be different reason. However there is guideline [5], so it is probably good idea.
I kept the install section without the "cp -p". The installation is done more or less by tool/rbinstall.rb and it seems the script does not honor the COPY variable. Moreover I checked the time-stamps and they look ok.
- Consider to move mkmf.rb to ruby-devel:
<mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby ruby-1.9.3.0-2.fc17.i686 <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpm -q ruby-devel package ruby-devel is not installed <mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# ruby -e "require 'mkmf'" mkmf.rb can't find header files for ruby at /usr/share/include/ruby.h
Actually this is interesting idea. Never thought about it.
I created ticket for this issue for the record https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec/issues/2
- rubygems rpm contains "bigdecimal-1.1.0.gemspec
io-console-0.3.gemspec json-1.5.4.gemspec minitest-2.5.1.gemspec"??
- At least these components should have its own subpackage rpms.
- Also, for example the latest minitest is 2.9.1. rubygems (or
rubygem-minitest built from ruby.... too complicated) should use latest minitest (and also please re-check components bundled in ruby - I hope ruby upstream will again unbundle these components ... this is again too complicated ..)
https://github.com/voxik/ruby.spec/issues/3
- include/ruby/ contains origuruma.h, however origuruma is separately packaged on Fedora. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5432 Can ruby use system-widely provided origuruma? If not, what prevents it?
This is though. I remember this lengthy discussion [4] about (not only) oniguruma and from that, I had the feeling that the upstream version is not compatible with Ruby. Moreover, I checked the latest sources from Fedora and from Ruby and they differs. I cannot imagine to patch Ruby to support the upstream library, although we can try to open request upstream? What do you think?
Do you still consider this as a blocker after upstream response [1]? Should I try to clarify or obtain exception from FPC just to be sure?
Vit
[1] http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/vframe.rb/ruby/ruby-core/41721?41672-41...
Hi Rubyists,
I have updated my testing repository with our latest version of Ruby. Here is short changelog:
* Bundled gems moved into dedicated directories and subpackages. * Create and own RubyGems directories for binary extensions. * Fix build with GCC 4.7.
Please let me know if you find something awkward.
Vit
Dne 4.10.2011 16:23, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Hello,
I have prepared testing repository with Ruby 1.9.3 rev 33347 (i.e. bit newer version then RC1). You can enable it by downloading repo file [1] into your /etc/yum.repos.d directory. You can later install the Ruby package by issuing:
# sudo yum install ruby rubygems-1.8.10-rc1.1.fc17
Please note that installation of fully versioned rubygems is *mandatory* ATM and you have to *uninstall rubygems* package prior installing this test release to avoid version conflicts. This will be fixes as soon as final release of Ruby will be available.
Vit
[1] http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/ruby_1.9.3.repo _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bohuslav Kabrda -
Darryl L. Pierce -
Mamoru TASAKA -
Michael Stahnke -
Mo Morsi -
Shawn Starr -
Vít Ondruch