[chef] Re: Re: berkshelf gem listed as a requirement in cookbook gemfile

[Torben Knerr < >]

Hi William,

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
Gemfile).

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
new ChefDK.

HTH,
Torben



On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:13 AM, AJ Christensen
<
 >
 wrote:
> Yo,
>
> 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.
>
> cheers,
>
> --aj
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:07 PM, AJ Christensen
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>> 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 
>> more.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> --aj
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:03 PM, William Jimenez
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>>> 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 
>>> is
>>> bad behavior now that ChefDK is the recommended deployment method for
>>> berkshelf. Just wanted to confirm with you all that my reasoning is 
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> William
>>>
>>>