You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@whimsical.apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2016/03/17 12:20:53 UTC
Does Passenger really need ruby 2.3.0? and in /usr/local/bin?
As the subject says.
MacOS/X comes with 2.0.0 which seems to work for most if not all the code.
So is it necessary to specify ruby 2.3.0 in status/Gemfile
and /usr/local/bin/ruby2.3.0 in passenger.cgi?
In particular it seems wrong to specify that ruby is under
/usr/local/bin, even if 2.3.0 is required.
I see that Gemfile does not support ruby version ranges (Why??), but
one can use the following work-round:
raise 'Ruby version must be at least 2.0' unless RUBY_VERSION.to_f >= 2.0
Re: Does Passenger really need ruby 2.3.0? and in /usr/local/bin?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
FTR: turns out this broke the script as it has to run with the same
version of Ruby as Passenger, which is running 2.3.0
On 18 March 2016 at 15:22, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note: I removed the specific reference to ruby 2.3.0.
>
> The Gemfile now requires >= 2.0.0, and the cgi assumes that ruby is on the PATH.
>
> On 17 March 2016 at 15:19, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17 March 2016 at 13:18, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:20 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As the subject says.
>>>
>>> Depends on your definition of require. Ruby >= 2.2.0 will use less
>>> memory and be more responsive due to improvements in garbage
>>> collection:
>>>
>>> https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2014/12/25/ruby-2-2-0-released/
>>>
>>> For that reason, I'd like the deployed code to use a version of Ruby
>>> that has the improved GC.
>>
>> Fair enough, but that can be done in the documentation and/or puppet config.
>> No need to embed it in scripts.
>>
>>> I would agree that that shouldn't be required for development/testing.
>>>
>>> I haven't investigated, but perhaps that could be expressed in
>>> Gemfiles using the group construct?
>>>
>>> http://yehudakatz.com/2010/05/09/the-how-and-why-of-bundler-groups/
>>
>> Probably, but that adds complication and does not seem necessary here.
>>
>> Note that as it stands, AFAICT the status passenger code won't even
>> run with 2.3.1.
>>
>> The same restriction would presumably apply when using the ruby
>> statement as part of a group, since it's the statement itself that
>> does not support version ranges.
>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>>> MacOS/X comes with 2.0.0 which seems to work for most if not all the code.
>>>>
>>>> So is it necessary to specify ruby 2.3.0 in status/Gemfile
>>>> and /usr/local/bin/ruby2.3.0 in passenger.cgi?
>>>>
>>>> In particular it seems wrong to specify that ruby is under
>>>> /usr/local/bin, even if 2.3.0 is required.
>>>>
>>>> I see that Gemfile does not support ruby version ranges (Why??), but
>>>> one can use the following work-round:
>>>>
>>>> raise 'Ruby version must be at least 2.0' unless RUBY_VERSION.to_f >= 2.0
Re: Does Passenger really need ruby 2.3.0? and in /usr/local/bin?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Note: I removed the specific reference to ruby 2.3.0.
The Gemfile now requires >= 2.0.0, and the cgi assumes that ruby is on the PATH.
On 17 March 2016 at 15:19, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 March 2016 at 13:18, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:20 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As the subject says.
>>
>> Depends on your definition of require. Ruby >= 2.2.0 will use less
>> memory and be more responsive due to improvements in garbage
>> collection:
>>
>> https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2014/12/25/ruby-2-2-0-released/
>>
>> For that reason, I'd like the deployed code to use a version of Ruby
>> that has the improved GC.
>
> Fair enough, but that can be done in the documentation and/or puppet config.
> No need to embed it in scripts.
>
>> I would agree that that shouldn't be required for development/testing.
>>
>> I haven't investigated, but perhaps that could be expressed in
>> Gemfiles using the group construct?
>>
>> http://yehudakatz.com/2010/05/09/the-how-and-why-of-bundler-groups/
>
> Probably, but that adds complication and does not seem necessary here.
>
> Note that as it stands, AFAICT the status passenger code won't even
> run with 2.3.1.
>
> The same restriction would presumably apply when using the ruby
> statement as part of a group, since it's the statement itself that
> does not support version ranges.
>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>>> MacOS/X comes with 2.0.0 which seems to work for most if not all the code.
>>>
>>> So is it necessary to specify ruby 2.3.0 in status/Gemfile
>>> and /usr/local/bin/ruby2.3.0 in passenger.cgi?
>>>
>>> In particular it seems wrong to specify that ruby is under
>>> /usr/local/bin, even if 2.3.0 is required.
>>>
>>> I see that Gemfile does not support ruby version ranges (Why??), but
>>> one can use the following work-round:
>>>
>>> raise 'Ruby version must be at least 2.0' unless RUBY_VERSION.to_f >= 2.0
Re: Does Passenger really need ruby 2.3.0? and in /usr/local/bin?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17 March 2016 at 13:18, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:20 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As the subject says.
>
> Depends on your definition of require. Ruby >= 2.2.0 will use less
> memory and be more responsive due to improvements in garbage
> collection:
>
> https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2014/12/25/ruby-2-2-0-released/
>
> For that reason, I'd like the deployed code to use a version of Ruby
> that has the improved GC.
Fair enough, but that can be done in the documentation and/or puppet config.
No need to embed it in scripts.
> I would agree that that shouldn't be required for development/testing.
>
> I haven't investigated, but perhaps that could be expressed in
> Gemfiles using the group construct?
>
> http://yehudakatz.com/2010/05/09/the-how-and-why-of-bundler-groups/
Probably, but that adds complication and does not seem necessary here.
Note that as it stands, AFAICT the status passenger code won't even
run with 2.3.1.
The same restriction would presumably apply when using the ruby
statement as part of a group, since it's the statement itself that
does not support version ranges.
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> MacOS/X comes with 2.0.0 which seems to work for most if not all the code.
>>
>> So is it necessary to specify ruby 2.3.0 in status/Gemfile
>> and /usr/local/bin/ruby2.3.0 in passenger.cgi?
>>
>> In particular it seems wrong to specify that ruby is under
>> /usr/local/bin, even if 2.3.0 is required.
>>
>> I see that Gemfile does not support ruby version ranges (Why??), but
>> one can use the following work-round:
>>
>> raise 'Ruby version must be at least 2.0' unless RUBY_VERSION.to_f >= 2.0
Re: Does Passenger really need ruby 2.3.0? and in /usr/local/bin?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:20 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As the subject says.
Depends on your definition of require. Ruby >= 2.2.0 will use less
memory and be more responsive due to improvements in garbage
collection:
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2014/12/25/ruby-2-2-0-released/
For that reason, I'd like the deployed code to use a version of Ruby
that has the improved GC.
I would agree that that shouldn't be required for development/testing.
I haven't investigated, but perhaps that could be expressed in
Gemfiles using the group construct?
http://yehudakatz.com/2010/05/09/the-how-and-why-of-bundler-groups/
- Sam Ruby
> MacOS/X comes with 2.0.0 which seems to work for most if not all the code.
>
> So is it necessary to specify ruby 2.3.0 in status/Gemfile
> and /usr/local/bin/ruby2.3.0 in passenger.cgi?
>
> In particular it seems wrong to specify that ruby is under
> /usr/local/bin, even if 2.3.0 is required.
>
> I see that Gemfile does not support ruby version ranges (Why??), but
> one can use the following work-round:
>
> raise 'Ruby version must be at least 2.0' unless RUBY_VERSION.to_f >= 2.0