Skip to content

Add Ruby 4.0 into content resolver. - #1552

Merged
yselkowitz merged 1 commit into
fedora-eln:mainfrom
jackorp:ruby4.0
Jan 26, 2026
Merged

Add Ruby 4.0 into content resolver.#1552
yselkowitz merged 1 commit into
fedora-eln:mainfrom
jackorp:ruby4.0

Conversation

@jackorp

@jackorp jackorp commented Jan 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@voxik PTAL.

Not sure whether putting DB connectors with Ruby 4.0 is the right way, or if we want them separate but it makes sense to me to segment it like this.

@voxik

voxik commented Jan 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Not sure whether putting DB connectors with Ruby 4.0 is the right way, or if we want them separate but it makes sense to me to segment it like this.

I am actually wondering, if we should not add ruby4.0 into the -ruby file 🤷

In any case, will we have -devel package or not?

@jackorp

jackorp commented Jan 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I am actually wondering, if we should not add ruby4.0 into the -ruby file 🤷

Inspired by Python3.14, I would maybe leave this file separation on individual streams.

In any case, will we have -devel package or not?

We will, added it to the yaml be consistent with the new package list.

@jackorp

jackorp commented Jan 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hmm, might need "package_placeholders" actually for the ruby4.0 stream https://github.com/fedora-eln/content-resolver/blob/master/config_specs/workload.yaml#L80C3-L80C23 since the content resolver might be looking mainly at fedora?

@yselkowitz

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This is for c10s only (and correctly so), without an eln tag Fedora is ignored, so should indeed be packages.

@voxik

voxik commented Jan 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

In any case, will we have -devel package or not?

We will, added it to the yaml be consistent with the new package list.

And -doc? 😇

@jackorp

jackorp commented Jan 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Added the -doc as well, it won't hurt having it as workload

@jackorp
jackorp force-pushed the ruby4.0 branch 2 times, most recently from f7f0640 to 720d1f2 Compare January 26, 2026 16:37
@jackorp

jackorp commented Jan 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I am actually wondering, if we should not add ruby4.0 into the -ruby file 🤷

So since we want to keep out the eln tag as "without an eln tag Fedora is ignored", then this should be a separate file. We could decide maybe sometime later whether some other name to bunch other streams later on would be more fitting to the file.

For the moment though we want to keep it separate to not mix c10s with Fedora.

(Added some explanation as to why separate file to commit description and then fixed up a typo I noticed after push...).

we have all packages that could be considered part of the workload.

I'd say this can go forward.

@yselkowitz yselkowitz left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A separate config file is the way to go with additional appstreams, as you have done here.

Keep it in a file separate from regular Ruby, sicne the ruby4.0 is c10s
specific stream that is not present in ELN.

This way we can use just the c10s tag for the ruby4.0 stream.
@yselkowitz
yselkowitz merged commit 68fe706 into fedora-eln:main Jan 26, 2026
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants