- From: Joe Van Dyk <
>
- To:
- Cc:
- Subject: [chef] Re: Your feedback please: RubyGems versions and Merb 1.1.0 Support Issue
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:32:14 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=mFlByxV2P/Z8CS8mtwZrVISJ3XDx1rvbX/d9k5IGx/3bkE+Lc9av4F2tpa5SmYZ+l5 PlEvc7U3yzw3ARhLRg1v58Rmprqd6eihcdxDscCYVUvwtEcglo2xYpu7h9tJwB3yO1tb h1W+2eIR+6YWrsrTT8jXkyMnYtVv8i0x+L3ac=
I really wish Chef came with all of its dependencies bundled up (ruby,
merb, rubygems, maybe even couch). I'd like it to be totally separate
from whatever else I have running on the machine. Just because chef
wants to use a later version of merb shouldn't force me to upgrade
rubygems.
Joe
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Daniel DeLeo
<
>
wrote:
>
Ohai everyone,
>
I'd like to get your feedback about a problem we're facing with
>
supporting merb 1.1.0. This issue will only affect users installing
>
from rubygems. Users installing from apt or yum/RPM will not be
>
affected.
>
>
The issue is that Merb 1.1.0 depends on bundler. Bundler depends on
>
rubygems 1.3.6. Many platforms do not have rubygems 1.3.6 available in
>
their package repos, and some explicitly disable the 'gem update
>
--system' command.
>
>
As far as I can tell, there is no way for us to specify a dependency
>
on merb 1.0.x but also allow users to opt in to merb 1.1.0 when
>
installing via rubygems.
>
>
If we modify our gem merb dependency to allow merb version 1.1.x, then
>
users will get merb 1.1.0 when installing. If they have a rubygems
>
version less than 1.3.6, this installation will fail when it attempts
>
to install bundler. I am not sure what the behavior is if merb 1.0.15
>
is already installed, but if it tries to upgrade, it's possible that
>
the shortest path to success would be to reinstall rubygems from
>
source.
>
>
So, I'd like to know if you all feel it's reasonable to "require"
>
users installing from gems to upgrade rubygems to version 1.3.6, or if
>
you know of an elegant (or ugly!) solution to this problem. Ideally,
>
we'd like to make merb 1.1 opt-in until the rubygems situation
>
improves, but merb 1.1 support is a blocker for ruby 1.9 support for
>
us, so we'd like to support it asap.
>
>
As a side note, I've pushed a development branch with merb 1.1 support
>
to my github:
>
>
http://github.com/danielsdeleo/chef/tree/CHEF-1072
>
git://github.com/danielsdeleo/chef.git
>
>
If you're comfortable running a development branch, please try it out.
>
Report any bugs you find as comments on this ticket:
>
http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-1072
>
>
Thanks,
>
Dan DeLeo
>
--
Joe Van Dyk
http://fixieconsulting.com
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.