[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rails 3 and ruby 1.9.2 application with chef

[AJ Christensen < >]

Yo,

The packages say ruby1.9.1 but they're 1.9.2-someshit~crapubuntu101

Package: ruby1.9.1-full (1.9.2.290-2) [universe]

http://packages.ubuntu.com/oneiric/ruby1.9.1-full

I've had no trouble running Rails on them as an interim solution
between deploying a slightly more controlled Ruby VM installation.

--AJ

On 25 April 2012 13:49, Wes Morgan 
<
 >
 wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 7:43 PM, AJ Christensen wrote:
>
>> If you use omnibus to install chef, it's already being installed into
>> a ruby 1.9x embedded container.
>>
>> I'd recommend using the ruby cookbook, and setting the attributes so
>> that it installs ruby1.9.x -- it'll end up in your standard system
>> location; then any other service you can deploy will use that ruby due
>> to it being in $PATH.
>
> Doesn't the ruby cookbook only know how to install the distro packaged Ruby 
> versions? On Ubuntu, that means Ruby 1.9.1, which won't work with Rails 3. 
> Ruby 1.9.2+ or Ruby 1.8.7 is required (so I got that slightly wrong before).
>
> I ended up using the rbenv cookbook to install 1.9.3.
>
>>
>> At Heavy Water, we have our continuous delivery platform build a Ruby
>> artefact for the architectures being used in the deployment with a
>> custom cookbook (instead of the opscode Ruby) to deploy that.
>> Eventually we may try to work in compatibility there.
>>
>> We've had a little trouble with this route when you need to install
>> gems with gem_package into either VM, but it's easily worked around
>> with the gem_binary parameter.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --AJ
>>
>
> ** snip **
>