Description of problem: Bundler should reside the ruby software collection, not Rails. Bundler doesn't depend on Rails and one can use bundler outside of rails using the existing ror40 collection so it makes sense to include bundler only in the ruby software collection. I can see many developers wanting to use plain ruby, sinatra, or padrino projects while still using bundler. Running yum install ror40-rubygem-bundler, while possible, seems strange. More information in this mailing list discussion: https://www.redhat.com/archives/sclorg/2014-September/msg00022.html From that discussion: "One option might be to move Bundler from ror40 collection to ruby200 collection and that would be something similar to what we did in RHEL7, i.e. there is provided just Ruby and Bundler, nothing more." Perhaps there were good reasons to include bundler in the Rails SCL and perhaps we can delegate the ror40-rubygem-bundler to ruby200-rubygem-bundler to make upgrades easier. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. Need to run yum install ror40-rubygem-bundler to install bundler in a Non-Rails project. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: yum install ruby200-rubygem-bundler should be used to install bundler. Additional info:
In addition to the discussion on the list referred in comment 0, I just want to clarify two things with regards to this remark: (In reply to Joe Rafaniello from comment #0) > Perhaps there were good reasons to include bundler in the Rails SCL and > perhaps we can delegate the ror40-rubygem-bundler to ruby200-rubygem-bundler > to make upgrades easier. * Bundler has two dependencies (rubygem-net-http-persistent and rubygem-thor), which would need to be moved as well. * All these packages need other build dependencies to execute their test suites. This was actually the main reason to have Bundler in ror40 collection, where all the dependencies are satisfied. Moving them into ruby200 collection would be possible, but we might end up moving half of the ror40 collection there. The intention was to keep ruby200 collection small and concise.
This is just a +1 here. We use ruby193 for a few projects and are being asked to support Ruby 2. All of our internal Ruby projects depend on bundler, and as it is shipped with ruby193 we hope to see it included in ruby200. Thanks! Eli
Just a note that as noted on the mailing list, the ror40-rubygem-bundler package can be installed without installing Rails.
*** Bug 1165294 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Quote from bug 1165294: > Quoting sfdc 01288099 > > """ > We would like to upgrade our ruby version to 2.0. We have a ROR 3 > application and we are dependent on the bundle command. In ruby193 there is > a ruby193-rubygem-bundler package and our application works fine.This > package seems to have moved to ror40-rubygem-bundler in SCL 1.1. > > Would it be possible to add ruby200-rubygem-bundler or how do you recommend > a ROR3 application dependent on bundle to use ruby 2.0? > """
Actually bundler has been moved to ruby collections since Ruby 2.2, so rh-ruby22 and rh-ruby23 SCLs already include bundler and there is no need to install RoR SCL for having bundler any more in those newer collections. Since we don't plan to change this in already existing old collections ruby193 and ror40, I believe we can close this bug now.