Re: ruby 2.0

2014-05-03 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:34:29PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Marisa and libguestfs has the same issue, but marisa seems to be > broken due to swig update in addition and libguesfs by kvm-quemu. libguestfs should be building .. In any case I've made the same change there and kicked off a build.

Re: ruby 2.0

2014-05-02 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 2.5.2014 17:20, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:17:43PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 2.5.2014 12:50, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 1.5.2014 12:30, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): [hivex] ruby-hivex-1.3.10-2.fc21.i686 requires ruby(release) = 0:2.0.0 Versioned rub

Re: ruby 2.0

2014-05-02 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:17:43PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 2.5.2014 12:50, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > > >Dne 1.5.2014 12:30, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): > > > >>>[hivex] > >>>ruby-hivex-1.3.10-2.fc21.i686 requires ruby(release) = 0:2.0.0 > > > >Versioned ruby(release) require should b

Re: ruby 2.0

2014-05-02 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 2.5.2014 12:50, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 1.5.2014 12:30, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): [hivex] ruby-hivex-1.3.10-2.fc21.i686 requires ruby(release) = 0:2.0.0 Versioned ruby(release) require should be used only for exceptional cases. I doubt this is the case. Fixed this one for y

Re: ruby 2.0

2014-05-02 Thread Vít Ondruch
il/devel/2014-April/198800.html Vít I'm unclear what we need to do about them. I noticed some rebuilds against ruby 2.0 flying past over the last few days. Does this mean there are rebuilds which are just waiting to be tagged into koji? Rich. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedo

Re: ruby 2.0 (was: Re: rawhide report: 20140501 changes)

2014-05-01 Thread Mo Morsi
h requires rubygem(qpid) >= 0:0.16.0 >> [hivex] >> ruby-hivex-1.3.10-2.fc21.i686 requires ruby(release) = 0:2.0.0 > I'm unclear what we need to do about them. I noticed some rebuilds > against ruby 2.0 flying past over the last few days. Does this mean > there are

ruby 2.0 (was: Re: rawhide report: 20140501 changes)

2014-05-01 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
.10-2.fc21.i686 requires ruby(release) = 0:2.0.0 I'm unclear what we need to do about them. I noticed some rebuilds against ruby 2.0 flying past over the last few days. Does this mean there are rebuilds which are just waiting to be tagged into koji? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtu

Ruby 2.0 in F19/Rawhide

2013-03-12 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi everybody, Ruby 2.0 just landed in F19/Rawhide [1]. Since the rebuild was not as fast as one would wish, there will be probably plenty of broken dependencies. I kindly ask you for patience or better for help with fixing any remaining issues. Just rebuild is unfortunately not enough

Re: Ruby 2.0 in F19

2013-01-02 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 2.1.2013 12:08, Stijn Hoop napsal(a): Hi, On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:59:46 +0100 Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 21.12.2012 20:58, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky napsal(a): Why don't we just ship 'rvm' or 'rbenv' and force everyone to manage their own Ruby environments? ;-) There used to be RVM in Fedora, bu

Re: Ruby 2.0 in F19

2013-01-02 Thread Stijn Hoop
Hi, On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:59:46 +0100 Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 21.12.2012 20:58, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky napsal(a): > > Why don't we just ship 'rvm' or 'rbenv' and force everyone to > > manage their own Ruby environments? ;-) > > There used to be RVM in Fedora, but we dropped it, since it canno

Re: Ruby 2.0 in F19

2013-01-02 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 21.12.2012 20:58, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky napsal(a): Sigh ... now there are *three* incompatible Ruby syntax / semantics "standards" to deal with. Don't spread FUD please. Why don't we just ship 'rvm' or 'rbenv' and force everyone to manage their own Ruby environments? ;-) There used to

Re: Ruby 2.0 in F19

2012-12-21 Thread M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi everybody, > > According to Ruby 2.0 release schedule: > > - code freeze: 23 Dec. > - 2.0.0-rc1 release: 1W Jan. (expected) > - 2.0.0-rc2 release: 1W Feb. (expected) > - 2.0.0-p0 release: 24 Feb. > >

Re: Ruby 2.0 in F19

2012-12-20 Thread Bohuslav Kabrda
- Original Message - > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:56 +0100 > Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Hi everybody, > > ...snip... > > >- Due to better integration of JRuby into Fedora [3], we would > > like to take this opportunity to restructure RubyGems folder > > layout. This should allow u

Re: Ruby 2.0 in F19

2012-12-20 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:56 +0100 Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi everybody, ...snip... >- Due to better integration of JRuby into Fedora [3], we would > like to take this opportunity to restructure RubyGems folder > layout. This should allow us to support Rubinius in the future > as well. >

Ruby 2.0 in F19

2012-12-20 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi everybody, According to Ruby 2.0 release schedule: - code freeze: 23 Dec. - 2.0.0-rc1 release: 1W Jan. (expected) - 2.0.0-rc2 release: 1W Feb. (expected) - 2.0.0-p0 release: 24 Feb. the official release date is quickly approaching. Therefore, I would like to update you about