Bug 903854

Christopher, I am not associated with this package anyhow. I did several builds, but they were just part of mass rebuild for updated Ruby.

I might update the package of course, but

1) I'd prefer if maintainer, i.e. Shreyank will do that
2) I'd like to hear some justification why

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #1)
> Christopher, I am not associated with this package anyhow. 

Oh sorry.

> 1) I'd prefer if maintainer, i.e. Shreyank will do that

I think he is inactive.


> 2) I'd like to hear some justification why

Well, this is one of the main dep of gitorious, which is a bit difficult to handle with. Ken and me has set up a page:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ktdreyer/Gitorious

In the installer of gitorious, the minimal version is 2.2.2(I'm not sure if 2.2.3 has replaced it now.)

(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
> > 1) I'd prefer if maintainer, i.e. Shreyank will do that
> 
> I think he is inactive.

It appears so. However, in that case, I would prefer to follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3)
> (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
> > > 1) I'd prefer if maintainer, i.e. Shreyank will do that
> > 
> > I think he is inactive.
> 
> It appears so. However, in that case, I would prefer to follow
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers

Yes, and I think this ticket is just for doing this now.

But I won't be any Ruby package's maintainer as I don't know Ruby. :D

I'll ask Ken to see if he is willing to do that.

I'm sorry for the inactivity, I'll see if I can fix this sometime today.

(In reply to Shreyank Gupta from comment #5)
> I'm sorry for the inactivity, I'll see if I can fix this sometime today.

May be somebody wants co-maintain?

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #6)
[..]
> May be somebody wants co-maintain?

Sure. But who ?

I have been going through all Gitorious's dependencies, looking to see if they are up-to-date in Rawhide, and filing RFEs in bugzilla. This ruby-openid bug is one of those RFEs.

As it turns out, Gitorious's Gemfile.lock specifies "ruby-openid (2.2.3)" on the Git development branch, so it will directly benefit Gitorious to have this package up-to-date. Obviously not all of the packages will align this closely, and they will drift around over time, but I am hoping that I can watch from both Fedora's perspective and Gitorious upstream's perspective and try to narrow the gap from both sides.

I am willing to co-maintain ruby-openid if Shreyank would like a co-maintainer.

(In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #8)
> I am willing to co-maintain ruby-openid if Shreyank would like a
> co-maintainer.

Please apply here:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ruby-openid

since it seems you have Shreyank's attention and approval granted:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=903854#c7

Thanks Vít. I applied.

Long-term, we should rename this package, as described in this email thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2013-February/001228.html

However, I don't see why that should block this particular RFE bug.

I've packaged the latest version and submitted a review request per the package rename policy. The rubygem-ruby-openid review request is at bug 1015778.

rubygem-ruby-openid has been accepted into Fedora, so I'm closing this bug.