[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [scl.org] rubygems 2.2.0 in ruby scl




----- Original Message -----
> Dne 15.9.2014 17:13, Joe Rafaniello napsal(a):
> >
> > ----- 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.
> 
> Of course you can do just "yum install ror40-rubygem-bundler" and you'll
> get just Bundler, nothing else, unless there is error ;)

I hope to try this soon and report back.

Thanks!

> > 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.
> 
> Would you mind opening RFE in our Bugzilla requesting this change? I
> can't promise you anything, but we should definitely consider this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Vít
> 

I hope I worded it right: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141890

Thanks.

-- 
Joe Rafaniello


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]