I have JRuby and Ruby (MRI) installed. It seems that I need to install gems twice - once for each of these platforms. Is this necessary or am I doing it wrong? After I installed the rails gem for MRI, should I have pointed JRuby to it, or was it necessary for me to also call: "jruby -S gem install rails"
You need to install gems for each different install of ruby that you have.
If you set GEM_HOME you can share your gem installations.
Some gems target specific platforms, e.g. Mongrel (there's a MRI one and a JRuby one). Also, JRuby cannot use gems that have native extensions (i.e. C code) unless they use the FFI (which most do not - yet).
Personally I have separate gem repos for MRI and JRuby. The little bit of extra hassle is worth the peace of mind when trying to track down a problem.
It's pretty easy to see what each repo has installed:
jruby -S gem list --local
vs.
gem list --local
You could even write a ruby script to sync one gem list to the other, but you'd have to be careful about platform specific gems....
I hit this problem when creating my gem, jimmy_jukebox, but made my gem work with both.
First, JRuby doesn't handle fork...exec (and even replies incorrectly to Process.respond_to?(:fork)), so I had to rescue NotImplementedError and use Spoon.spawnp instead.
I then created (in my gem's /bin directory) paired executables -- play_jukebox and jplay_jukebox; and load_jukebox and jload_jukebox -- each with the correct shebang line (/usr/bin/env ruby or /usr/bin/env jruby).
I'd love to know a better way. But I'd rather handle everything within a single gem than maintain and distribute multiple gems.
Related
Ruby gem names are really throwing me off. For example if install a gem called jade, a wrapper script is placed at /usr/bin/jade1.9 on some systems and at /usr/bin/jade on others. I'm curious if anyone has a recommendation on how I can use jade in scripts without writing some hackish code that guesses the correct gem name. The naming also makes it difficult to write documentation for less savvy users. Is there a simple way of making gems install with same name on all systems?
To elaborate a bit:
gem install jade #jade is something I made up
ls /usr/bin/|grep "jade"
> jade1.9
When I want to execute:
jade --dosomething
I actually have to run
jade1.9 --dosomething
I've noticed certain gems such as rake are installed at both /usr/bin/rake and /usr/bin/rake1.9 with neither being a symlink and both files having the same md5sum.
I am trying to understand why gems get the ruby version appended on some systems and how I can make install without the trailing version number.
A list of some example of gems that install an executable:
ls /usr/bin/|grep "1.9"
amalgalite-pack1.9
bundle1.9
crate1.9
erb1.9
gem1.9
irb1.9
minitar1.9
rake1.9
rdoc1.9
ri1.9
rlock1.9
ruby1.9
rubyscript2exe1.9
testrb1.9
Apologies for the topic title, couldn't resist.
Basically, For no reason whatsoever apart from trying out different things. I want to implode RVM and try out rbenv. Nothing against RVM, just want to try different peoples software and try different things out.
I can get rid of RVM and install rbenv no problem. Could you guys confirm a few things for me.
Firstly, if I do the above, and then install a few different ruby versions. I know I can place a .ruby-version file in a projects root directory to specify a specific ruby version but then when I say gem install <gemname> I take it that is installed globally for that ruby version.
If I then use bundler per project to manage what gems are used and I specify a gem version, what happens if the version specified in the lock file is different to the currently installed version and what happens if it's vice versa?
I just need a bit of clarification on what's doing what in regards to ruby, versions, gems and their versions.
One of the (many) lovely things about rbenv is that you can so easily look right at your ruby installation to see what's going on. For example, on my machine I can open ~/.rbenv and there's versions containing my ruby installations, such as 1.9.3-p327. Opening that, I can keep drilling down to see my gems installed for that version of ruby (in ~/.rbenv/versions/1.9.3-p327/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1/gems). It is then trivial to run gem list or gem install somegem and confirm that what's being affected is this very collection of gems - if this is the current ruby (set in rbenv global and starred in rbenv versions).
In short, everything about your system thinks that ruby means this version of ruby and that its library is this library.
For Bundler, you'll need to install rbenv-bundler. A nice tutorial (easily found with Google) is here: http://dan.carley.co/blog/2012/02/07/rbenv-and-bundler/
I'm new to Ruby and RVM, but I've managed to get both set up on my system by following a simple tutorial. In the tutorial, commands like
gem install rails
which gem
bundle install
are used, without much explanation of the Ruby management ecosystem. My confusion is where all these utility programs come from?
I only installed ruby 1.9.3 and rvm, but somehow 'gem', 'which', and 'bundle' are executable programs in my path. How exactly did they get there and where can I read about the arguments they take and similar utilities I may not have discovered yet. There are no man-pages for them.
Finally, I believe rvm is analogous to virtualenv in Python and gem is analogous to pip?
Thanks for the help getting started.
In Ruby 1.9 the Rubygems package manager is included with standard Ruby, so that's where gem comes from. More info with gem -h or and http://guides.rubygems.org/.
which is a standard utility in unixoid systems and has nothing to do with Ruby (man 1 which for details).
bundle comes from Bundler, which is a commonly used gem for managing an application's dependencies. You generally have to install this manually, unless RVM does that nowadays. bundle -h has more info for you.
I am not sure what the differences are between these two tools. There seems to be a big overlap, but I have been using RVM and facing some miss-compatibility issues.
What does Bundler do that RVM does not?
They serve different purposes. RVM creates a sandbox to manage your Ruby installations. As a part of that, it also lets you define gemsets.
Bundler doesn't manage your Rubies, it works with the currently selected Ruby.
So, I think you should consider RVM as the configuration manager for your development environment, and Bundler the gem manager for an application.
EDIT: Additional thoughts -
Whether we use RVM or not, typically we'd have to load all the gems we're going to use for an app by hand, using gem install blah, for every gem we want to use.
I end up managing my gems across multiple Rubies by hand. Once they're installed I can create gemsets using RVM, but RVM won't automatically retrieve a particular version of a gem if it's not installed, or go get it again if it was removed. Because RVM is more concerned with your Ruby environment, it mostly leaves the versioning of gems to gem and to us.
Bundler, on the other hand, does care about those missing parts in RVM. When you create the Gemfile for bundler, it will retrieve the necessary gems and specific versions if specified. So, the task of installing a Ruby app on a different machine becomes much simpler. Push the files to the other machine, then run bundle install and it'll do the rest.
It works nicely with Rails and is a sensible solution for my production files. It will be much simpler than how I have to handle Perl distributions in order to run Perl apps on the same hosts.
RVM is more like a containment unit. While Bundler is like a manifest (dependency manager) of what the application will require or use in it's lifecycle (among other things).
If you are working in Rails, you will not be able to escape Bundler. But I use it all the time just so I know what Gems I'll need, and so will others who later come into the project.
RVM helps me separate out my Rubies and then further into Rubies/projects. This way I don't have a slew of Gems and different versions all in one pile.
Not exactly the most action packed answer, but hope it helps a little.
To directly answer your question...
What does Bundler do that RVM does
not?
Bunlder will install all gems that are needed by a project (that uses bundler, and have all needed gems specified in a Gemfile). RVM does not do this.
Using the Gemfile you can specify what gem groups (ie: development, testing)...
There are many 'small' things like these that bundler does but RVM does not. In general as the good people above explained, RVM has a different set of goals from that of bundler. RVMs about managing ruby runtimes while bundler is about managing dependent gems for a application.
Bundler is a tool for managing dependencies in your code -- i.e., all the gems it requires. It will make sure that all the gems you specify in your Gemfile, and any dependencies, are installed on your system. It doesn't really care which version of ruby you are using, it just installs the gems for you under whichever interpreter is in use.
RVM is a tool for running multiple rubies, and in theory, multiple gemsets as well. It doesn't handle dependencies for you at all -- it's still up to you to install the gems.
My experience (and I'm new to RVM), is that you don't want to bother with RVM unless you have a need for running multiple rubies, or need gems installed for different projects that somehow conflict with each other. Even if you are using RVM, it makes sense to use Bundler to manage gem dependencies so that your Gemfile can be tracked in whatever code repository you are using.
I'm new to Ruby. I have a .bundle file. I put it in the source folder and did
require('my.bundle')
But when I call the methods in the bundle, the definition is not found. Do I have to install them or include them in some other way to access them?
I am on Ruby version 1.8.7 (latest version on Mac).
I highly recommend using RVM to manage your Ruby installation, including your gems, so if you don't already have that, get it and follow the instructions for installing it. Make sure you do the part about modifying your bash startup script or you'll see weird behavior, like the wrong Ruby being called. Also, use the steps in "RVM and RubyGems" to install your gems or you can run into weird behavior with gems being installed under the wrong or an unexpected Ruby.
Second, use the gem command to install gems:
gem install gem_to_install
replacing "gem_to_install" with the name of the gem you want, and it will be installed into the appropriate gem folder for your Ruby.
If you are on Ruby 1.92, and trying to require a gem to use as a module in your code, use:
require 'gemname'
if it is installed via the gem command. And, if it is a module you wrote or have in your program's directory or below it, use:
require_relative 'path/to/gem/gemname'
If you are on a Ruby < 1.9 you'll also need to add require 'rubygems' above your other require lines, then use require './path/to/gem/gemname'.
Thanks, but my .bundle is not in gems. How do I install/require a .bundle file I already have?
If you wrote it look into rubygems/gemcutter or bundler for info on bundling and managing gems.
You can install a gem without using the app by going into the directory containing the gem and running setup.rb. See http://i.loveruby.net/en/projects/setup/doc/usage.html for a decent writeup or the official docs at: http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/3