Rubygem RPMs and "yum update"

Vít Ondruch vondruch at
Wed Jan 2 12:54:58 UTC 2013

Dne 2.1.2013 11:29, Philip Rhoades napsal(a):
> Vít,
> On 2013-01-02 19:45, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Hi Philip,
>> Dne 1.1.2013 17:38, Philip Rhoades napsal(a):
>>> People,
>>> I have just upgraded to Fedora 18 x86_64 and installed all the 
>>> Ruby/Rails RPMs but I notice when I create a test rails app and then 
>>> add something to Gemfile and do "bundle install", the system starts 
>>> pulling in all the native Gems - I would like to stick to just using 
>>> RPMs
>> You could try the '--local', which should prefer already installed gems.
>>> - so I presume "bundle install" does not get used in the change to 
>>> the RPM environment? (ie I should manually install the missing gem 
>>> RPMs).
>> I am not aware of any better way how to do it. But may be somebody
>> from Aeolus or Katello could provide more information, since they are
>> using similar workflow, i.e. they are developing with RPM gems.
>>> Also, I presume one has to be careful about doing a system-wide 
>>> update of RPMs with "yum update" in case updated Gems break stuff 
>>> specified in Gemfile.lock?
>> Once you have everything installed, the 'bundle install --local'
>> should update your Gemfile.lock just fine.
>> Actually, is there reason to use Gemfile and Bundler at all? I would
>> say that the Rails application will work without it just fine.
> Basically, that is the first thing that I was asking about but you 
> didn't really answer my second question about possibly breaking stuff 
> by using "yum update".

I hope that the chance that "yum update" will break anything is smaller 
than that "bundle update" will break something. As for Rails for 
example, I can promise, that we are doing only backports of security 
fixes and this applies to every gem I own (maintain). Cannot speak about 
other gems though.


> Thanks,
> Phil.

More information about the ruby-sig mailing list