[katello-devel] Katello RPM, Ruport and Issues with Git in Gemfile

[Tom McKay]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Weiss" <jweiss at redhat.com>
> To: "Eric Helms" <ehelms at redhat.com>
> Cc: katello-devel at redhat.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:09:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [katello-devel] Katello RPM,	Ruport and Issues with Git in Gemfile
> 
> Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Some background on the issue (and apologies if I get some of the
> > details wrong), in order to run on Fedora 17 we need to use the gem
> > Ruport and specifically a bleeding edge version of Ruport 1.7.  The
> > maintainers of Ruport have tagged this version in their git
> > repository
> > but have not pushed it out to Rubygems due to the fact that the
> > tests
> > need to be fixed (David has emailed the maintainer who provided
> > this
> > information).  Due to this, the original inclusion of Ruport was
> > reverted in our codebase and then recently was un-reverted.  And
> > after
> > a few fixes, works properly in development. However, attempting to
> > build the Katello RPM will currently break at the API generation
> > step
> > as it cannot find the git checkout of the Ruport gem.
> >
> > Now, after some digging, testing and discussion, I see three
> > options:
> >
> > 1) Figure out some way to make the bundler monkeypatch that tries
> > to
> > prefer RPMs over Gems, also prefer RPMs over Git declarations of a
> > Gem.
> >
> > 2) Fork Ruport, name it something like "ruport-tmp" or
> > "ruport-katello"
> >      Build the gem
> >      Push the gem to rubygems.org
> >      Reference this gem until the real Ruport is able to be pushed
> >
> > 3) Spend time helping the maintainer of Ruport get the tests
> > passing
> > so that an official version can be pushed out to Rubygems.org
> >
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > katello-devel mailing list
> > katello-devel at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
> 
> There needs to be a short term solution to at least get the build
> working. If options 1 or 2 can't be done in a day, we should
> consider reverting the commit until a permanent solution is ready.
> 
> 
> --
> Jeff Weiss
> Principal Quality Assurance Engineer
> jweiss at redhat.com
> (919)886-6533
> 

My vote is to revert the reverted revert. Things are clearly not ready upstream so why not take the time to do it right before bringing it into master? The argument that it's required for katello to run on f17 doesn't make much sense to me when our current state is that it runs nowhere.