- From: "Scott M. Likens" <
>
- To: Bryan McLellan <
>
- Cc: Daniel DeLeo <
>,
- Subject: [[chef-dev]] Re: [[chef-dev]] Re: [[chef-dev]] Use of require in chef
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:42:20 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=acheron; d=likens.us; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer; b=NYSgiAirwjp+pr+Lutm6IGa55MWfxbAEdhYVTC9+6Ur9MxIzdJ4Q5uGOL11J+b1JwyxvbpoM7VbT0tMzJk7sXcMt+az08xWsBc3Br7MdK1u121X2icipzjW3VcRPNRbF;
If you have my vote, I vote with Bryan McLellan here.
I would rather avoid the rubygems dependency completely if possible, I know
it raises some hackles and makes people worried. But I think most of us have
seen how much fun rubygems can be, and some of us remember minigems fondly...
On Nov 13, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Bryan McLellan wrote:
>
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Daniel DeLeo
>
<
>
>
wrote:
>
> * Don't require rubygems
>
> Finally, it should be possible to move any require "rubygems" into the
>
> executables and out of the lib/ dir. This would put chef in line with
>
> accepted practices and hopefully make packaging a bit easier.
>
>
I'm still of the opinion that the require for rubygems shouldn't be in
>
the chef/ohai source, and should either be in the distributions gem
>
wrapper binaries or in the distributions packaging if required. For
>
the chatter about why, see the comments in the slew of sticks. Ya'll
>
are, of course, encouraged to convince me otherwise.
>
>
http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/OHAI-140
>
http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/OHAI-119
>
http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-669
>
http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-531
>
>
!DSPAM:4afda4f724111804284693!
>
>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.