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

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



In case you missed it in all of my noise in this thread, I added the bug here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141890

Adding your desired use cases/examples would certainly give them more information as they review the RFE.

Thanks.

----- Original Message -----
> 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 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
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sclorg
> >
> 

-- 
Joe Rafaniello


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