Hi,
My Snow Leopard just let me down and now it could be a “good” moment to
upgrade to Lion.
But I’m not sure is it an option yet.
I would be using Rails 3.0.9, Ruby 1.9.2 via RVM. Postgresql DB. And
probably some stuff via homebrew. Git, Versions and that type of stuff.
Yeah and ImageMagick (!! I’m already crying)
Are the lights red for Lion since it is so fresh?
Any experiences?
Thanks.
Works very well. Only thing to watch out for is that you compile rmagick
correctly so that you don’t run in the threading issue.
That should read imagemagick when using rmagic…
Martin W. wrote in post #1018103:
Works very well.
Not for this guy:
On Aug 23, 8:49pm, comopasta Gr [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
My Snow Leopard just let me down and now it could be a “good” moment to
upgrade to Lion.But I’m not sure is it an option yet.
I would be using Rails 3.0.9, Ruby 1.9.2 via RVM. Postgresql DB. And
probably some stuff via homebrew. Git, Versions and that type of stuff.Are the lights red for Lion since it is so fresh?
No problems for me.
Fred
I just tried it this morning actually …
When you Install XCode, you have to “install” it from the App Store,
THEN go to /Applications/Install XCode and double click that icon. (So
basically you install it twice, the first time you “install” the
installer, and then you run the installer.)
I wasn’t able to get passenger 3.0.8 to work with the fresh copy of
Apache in Lion. When I go to my “xyz.local” domain name in my browser,
the request isn’t passed to my local box (nothing comes in the apache
access_log), so I think maybe I didn’t set up passenger correctly with
Apache 2. Still working on that part…
It’s been much better than the Snow Leopard experience. Pretty clean
overall, got pow up and running with rvm without issues. Not using
postgres,
though, so I can’t comment on that. Very happy with the upgrade!
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Frederick C. <
[email protected]> wrote:
probably some stuff via homebrew. Git, Versions and that type of stuff.
–
Matt W.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jason Fleetwood-Boldt
<[email protected]
wrote:
I just tried it this morning actually …
When you Install XCode, you have to “install” it from the App Store, THEN
go to /Applications/Install XCode and double click that icon. (So basically
you install it twice, the first time you “install” the installer, and then
you run the installer.)
Jason, this isn’t correct. When you install any application from the
Mac
App Store, there is no need to install a second time.
I wasn’t able to get passenger 3.0.8 to work with the fresh copy of Apache
in Lion. When I go to my “xyz.local” domain name in my browser, the request
isn’t passed to my local box (nothing comes in the apache access_log), so I
think maybe I didn’t set up passenger correctly with Apache 2. Still working
on that part…
Next, I was able to get passenger 3.0.8 installed with zero issues.
Furthermore, I was able to use both passenger as well as the passenger
development client successfully on Lion.
-Conrad
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, comopasta Gr [email protected]
wrote:
Hi,
My Snow Leopard just let me down and now it could be a “good” moment to
upgrade to Lion.
How did Mac OS 10.6 let you down? It worked great for me prior to
installing
Mac OS 10 .7 as far as Rails is concerned.
But I’m not sure is it an option yet.
I would be using Rails 3.0.9, Ruby 1.9.2 via RVM. Postgresql DB. And
probably some stuff via homebrew. Git, Versions and that type of stuff.Are the lights red for Lion since it is so fresh?
Any experiences?
I have been working with Lion for several months now without any issues
that
effects Rails or its dependent software.
Good luck,
-Conrad
I have used
http://eddorre.com/posts/rails-ultimate-install-guide-on-os-x-lion-using-rvm-homebrew-and-pow
and it was great to go from vanilla Lion to working GIT/Rails.
I did have some issues with RVM and Rails 3.1, but that is another
topic, and perhaps related to RVM not Lion.
On 24 Aug 2011, at 09:15, Conrad T. wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jason Fleetwood-Boldt [email protected]
wrote:When you Install XCode, you have to “install” it from the App Store, THEN go to
/Applications/Install XCode and double click that icon. (So basically you install
it twice, the first time you “install” the installer, and then you run the
installer.)Jason, this isn’t correct. When you install any application from the Mac App
Store, there is no need to install a second time.
For most application’s that’s true, but a couple of Apple products on
the Mac App Store (e.g. Xcode, OS X Lion) only give you an installer,
which you have to run manually. These products need to write files
outside of /Applications, and the Mac App Store can’t do that by itself.
Chris
On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Chris M. wrote:
On 24 Aug 2011, at 09:15, Conrad T. wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jason Fleetwood-Boldt [email protected]
wrote:When you Install XCode, you have to “install” it from the App Store, THEN go
to /Applications/Install XCode and double click that icon. (So basically you
install it twice, the first time you “install” the installer, and then you run the
installer.)Jason, this isn’t correct. When you install any application from the Mac App
Store, there is no need to install a second time.
If you just do the installation from the Mac App Store, you have no
“make” command available in your terminal (I restarted my terminal and
rebooted my machine and everything). You have to actually run the
installer by double clicking /Applications/Install XCode to get the
compiler installed on your machine. Until you do you will get “command
not found” when you try to “make” something
Jason Fb wrote in post #1018284:
If you just do the installation from the Mac App Store, you have no
“make” command available in your terminal (I restarted my terminal and
rebooted my machine and everything). You have to actually run the
installer by double clicking /Applications/Install XCode to get the
compiler installed on your machine. Until you do you will get “command
not found” when you try to “make” something
That’s just word play. Yes the button on the Mac App Store may say
“Install”, but in the case of Xcode (and Mac OS X 10.7 - Lion) it really
means “Download.” And, since the Mac App Store is designed to put things
ONLY in /Applications that just happens to be the download folder for
those installer packages. You are still not installing Xcode twice. You
are downloading the installer and installing Xcode once.
Chris M. wrote in post #1018217:
For most application’s that’s true, but a couple of Apple products on
the Mac App Store (e.g. Xcode, OS X Lion) only give you an installer,
which you have to run manually. These products need to write files
outside of /Applications, and the Mac App Store can’t do that by itself.
You mean the Mac App Store WON’T install outside of /Applications. This
is by design.
Besides, how is this drastically different than installing Xcode before
it was on the Mac App Store? You would download the Xcode installer and
then run the installer. The Xcode installer includes multiple
applications. There’s Xcode, Instruments and an array of other utility
apps. If Xcode where to be installed like any other Mac App Store app
then each individual app would have to be installed separately, which
would be a PITA.
I somewhat understand the concern about needing to keep the installer
package hanging around on the drive. However, I don’t see another way to
provide delta updates for a tool suite like Xcode. Any system capable of
running the latest version of Xcode most likely has a fairly substantial
amount of disk space anyway. It’ll get to a point where we won’t even
think about a 3 or 4 GB file. It’ll just be another one of the already
millions of files on our drives we don’t think twice about.
On Mac OS X there has always been two basic types of application
installations. Some apps don’t need an installer package, some do. The
difference with the Mac App Store is that in order for third-parties to
be able to sell through the Mac App Store the app must support the
“drag-and-drop” style application install. This is safer, and easier to
control.
Third parties building apps that require installer packages will have to
resort to traditional methods of distribution. In some cases (e.g.
iWork) the requirement for an installer package can be eliminated by
separating the suite into individual applications.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs