On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org> wrote: > > > On Oct 18, 11:43 am, Michael Stahnke <stah...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:19 AM, jcbollinger <john.bollin...@stjude.org> >> wrote: > [...] >> > I, on the other hand, would recommend avoiding gems altogether if >> > you're using the system's Ruby (i.e. one you installed from an RPM, >> > whether via yum or otherwise). Ruby modules installed via RPM are not >> > (should not be) gems. Using both gem and rpm to manage the same Ruby >> > installation is begging for trouble. >> >> Why? The packages of many ruby libraries are basically gems wrapped >> in RPM. Basically it allows the library/tool to be registered with >> the RPM and gem database. I admit it's not my favorite thing to have >> gems (and not RPMs), but technically there is almost nothing wrong >> with it, other than future RPMs can't depend on something from a gem >> install only. > > > As others have described, if you use gems and RPMs on the same Ruby > installation then you have two different sources of truth. They can > and will disagree about what modules (to use a somewhat generic term) > are installed. Their respective repositories can and will provide > different versions of some modules, and different configurations of > some other modules. Using both together on the same Ruby installation > can and will make a hash of your Ruby library. Eventually. If you're > lucky, you'll notice. > > Even RPMs registering their Ruby payloads with the gem database does > not solve the problem, because gem is not so accommodating about > synchronizing the RPM database. In any case, it is not safe to assume > that *all* RPMs with Ruby payloads will install modules as gems. > > >> There are plenty of other debates about rubygems, and whether or not >> they are useful or helpful or anything. But as far as having a system >> with ruby and using to gem to install things, it will work and is >> always all that bad. > > > Please don't misunderstand: I have no particular complaint about gem > itself. If you want all its gemtacular goodness then install a local > Ruby build and go wild in it with gems. As long as you put it in a > reasonable place (e.g. /usr/local) no RPM will touch it, so no > problem. > > Of course, you have no obligation whatever to do as I advise. If you > choose to use both gems and RPMs on the same Ruby then I wish you luck > -- you're a braver man than I. > I wasn't really trying to disagree. Just that gem and rpm don't have to fight too much. As an aside, I do maintain about 90 RPMs of gems in EPEL, so I totally understand having gems packaged when possible.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
