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

[Jeff Weiss]

Tom McKay <thomasmckay at redhat.com> writes:

> ----- 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.

+1


-- 
Jeff Weiss
Principal Quality Assurance Engineer
jweiss at redhat.com
(919)886-6533