[scl.org] rubygems 2.2.0 in ruby scl

[Eli Heady]

Having Bundler in the ruby200 SCL would be very much appreciated here also.

Thanks for considering it.

Eli

--
Eli Heady
Senior Unix Systems Administrator
Information Technology Services
West Virginia University
304-293-8598

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Joe Rafaniello <jrafanie at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Dne 15.9.2014 16:45, Joe Rafaniello napsal(a):
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> Dne 15.9.2014 15:52, Joe Rafaniello napsal(a):
> > >>>> However, I am wondering why you should be interested in RubyGems 2.2
> > >>>> just due to this specific change?
> > >>>> <\quote>
> > >>> Yes, the more compatible with upstream ruby/rubygems/bundler, the
> easier
> > >>> it
> > >>> is for applications, especially ones that support multiple platforms.
> > >> I thought it will be actually Bundler related, that is why I am
> asking.
> > >> So what are you actually missing? Would be an update of Bundler option
> > >> for you? That seems more feasible to me, although I have not checked
> if
> > >> really possible.
> > >>
> > >> Vít
> > >>
> > > I am researching what is required to get SCL ruby 2.0 to work with the
> > > rubygems.org based gems.
> > > In other words, is there some combination of rubygems.org based gems
> that I
> > > can use with SCL ruby 2.0/rubygems 2.0.14 without requiring the gems be
> > > patched in rpms?
> > >
> > > I'm fine with upgrading bundler to 1.7.2 from rubygems.org if the
> binary
> > > extensions fix is also available there.
> > >
> > > I was under the impression the upstream fix landed only in rubygems
> itself:
> > > http://blog.rubygems.org/2013/12/26/2.2.0-released.html
> > >
> > > And with that change, the packaged bundler would no longer require a
> patch
> > > for binary extensions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> >
> > Well, we have Bundler which works with ruby200 available in ror40
> > collection. And that should just work with gems from rubygems.org. Is
> > that enough for you? Or you don't use ror40 collection for some reason?
>
> Yes, that would work if I can pick and choose what I want from ror40
> including bundler, but not be required to install rails 4.0.
> We'd rather just use the SCL for core ruby and let bundler handle the rest
> since our users/developers can be on rhel, centos, fedora, ubuntu, osx, etc.
>
> > One option might be to move Bundler from ror40 collection to ruby200
> > collection and that would be something similar to what we did in RHEL7,
> > i.e. there is provided just Ruby and Bundler, nothing more.
> >
>
> Yes, I think that would be a good idea.  I can see developers wanting to
> use sinatra, padrino, or just ruby but want to use bundler for dependency
> management.
>
> Thanks Vit!
>
> --
> Joe Rafaniello
>
> _______________________________________________
> SCLorg mailing list
> SCLorg at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sclorg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/sclorg/attachments/20140915/64d8b833/attachment.htm>