Issue #20857 has been updated by austin (Austin Ziegler). vo.x (Vit Ondruch) wrote in #note-9:
byroot (Jean Boussier) wrote in #note-8:
vo.x (Vit Ondruch) wrote in #node-7:
Fedora packages don't necessarily follow upstream development at the same speed. Mostly due to maintainers capacity, other times due to compatibility matrix or even due to "it works, don't touch it". So while there are possibly upstream fixes, it is by nature not as straight forward for Fedora.
I know, that's why I'm always puzzled at why distributions are trying to re-package rubygems... Like most of the failure I'm seeing on your CI are things already fixed upstream. But I suppose that's another topic.
I wish we had a place to discuss "why distributions are trying to re-package rubygems."
I think that we should make such a place, because *in the past* it has caused no small amount of difficulty for upstream maintainers (both in how distributions re-packaged Ruby and in how distributions re-packaged several gems). I’m maintaining several (non-Ruby) packages on MacPorts now, and while we frequently have patches that are applied to sources (sometimes to fix things that are MacPorts build specific, sometimes to make things like `command upgrade` print a message instead of trying to replace a protected binary), I am looking for ways that we can improve our handling of RubyGems in general to make it work more like Ruby expects (what we have now is…not great). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20857: Don't change `Hash#inspect` formatting https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20857#change-110315 * Author: vo.x (Vit Ondruch) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) * ruby -v: ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-10-15 master 3da3cabf98) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Testing Ruby 3.4 in Fedora, I just hit issue like this in AsciiDoctor test suite: ~~~ 1) Failure: Minitest::Test::TestExtensions::TestIntegration#test_should_assign_captures_correctly_for_inline_macros [test/extensions_test.rb:1382]: --- expected +++ actual @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ "target=\"\", attributes={} -target=\"value,key=val\", attributes={1=>\"value\", \"key\"=>\"val\", \"name\"=>\"value\"} -target=\"\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"\"} -target=\"[text]\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"[text]\"} +target=\"value,key=val\", attributes={1 => \"value\", \"key\" => \"val\", \"name\" => \"value\"} +target=\"\", attributes={\"text\" => \"\"} +target=\"[text]\", attributes={\"text\" => \"[text]\"} target=\"target\", attributes={} -target=\"target\", attributes={1=>\"value\", \"key\"=>\"val\", \"name\"=>\"value\"} -target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"\"} -target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\"=>\"[text]\"} +target=\"target\", attributes={1 => \"value\", \"key\" => \"val\", \"name\" => \"value\"} +target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\" => \"\"} +target=\"target\", attributes={\"text\" => \"[text]\"} target=\"target\", attributes={}" ~~~ This suggest that `Hash#inspect` formatting was changed and there are additional spaces around hash rocket. Is the space really worth of the troubles? BTW [here](https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor/issues/4634#issuecomment-24494974...) is AsciiDoctor upstream reaction and I share the sentiment. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/