- From: Torben Knerr <
- To: "
- Subject: [chef] Re: Re: berkshelf gem listed as a requirement in cookbook gemfile
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:44:28 +0100
I think both approaches are OK. Depends on whether you want to require
a specific berks version globally (via the ChefDK installation) or you
want to require a specific berks version on a per project level (via
Usually I tend to prefer the Gemfile approach because it expresses and
enforces all its dependencies. On the other hand, if your README
states that you need ChefDK 0.3.5 as a dependency it's not that bad
either. It's just if your projects have different release cycles and
you don't want to update and test all of them whenever you install a
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:13 AM, AJ Christensen
> Sorry for the follow up.
> It's worth mentioning the ChefDk includes gecode libs, pre-built, for
> all supported target platforms, which greatly alleviates the
> installation heat-cost of Berkshelf.
> On machines where this (ChefDK) is not present and the prerequisite
> environment variable and system libraries have not been configured, a
> full installation of gecode from source will be automatically handled
> by the gem (via bundle) installation.
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:07 PM, AJ Christensen
>> chefdk includes bundler and berkshelf and the Gemfile will resolve.
>> Please try to resolve and report back.
>> I think it's OK. In some projects, it's not necessary to use a Gemfile any
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:03 PM, William Jimenez
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> I'm noticing that the berkshelf gem is listed as a requirement in Gemfiles
>>> of a lot of cookbooks I've been working with lately. I suspect that this
>>> bad behavior now that ChefDK is the recommended deployment method for
>>> berkshelf. Just wanted to confirm with you all that my reasoning is
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.