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

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

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

Thanks for considering it.


Eli Heady
Senior Unix Systems Administrator
Information Technology Services
West Virginia University

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

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