[[chef-dev]] Re: [[chef-dev]] Re: [[chef-dev]] Use of require in chef

[Daniel DeLeo < >]

While we're attempting to figure this stuff out once and for all, this is a good issue to bring up.

As rubygems will modify the executables on install, the only downside to banishing `require "rubygems"` everywhere is that you'd have to run, for example, `ruby -rubygems bin/chef-client` to run the code out of a git clone. This can easily be tucked away from view inside the rake tasks for running a development instance or integration tests, so the impact would be minimal.

So, I'll +1 on this; I doubt anyone has a compelling reason that they need to run a git clone of chef and can't` rake install` the gems, but if that's you, feel free to comment.

Dan Deleo

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Scott M. Likens < "> > wrote:

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!
>
>