OSX Leopard: Rails/Mongrel/Capistrano built in

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html

“Ruby on Rails
Work in a developer’s dreamland. Leopard is the perfect platform for
Ruby on Rails development, with Rails, Mongrel, and Capistrano built
in.”

–Wagner

On 10/16/07, Wagner N. [email protected] wrote:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html

“Ruby on Rails
Work in a developer’s dreamland. Leopard is the perfect platform for
Ruby on Rails development, with Rails, Mongrel, and Capistrano built
in.”

–Wagner

Nice. But I wonder what upgrading to Leopard will do to my
self-installed Ruby and Rails (using the Hivelogic instructions). I’ve
got the latest Ruby (1.8.6), Rails (1.2.5), and all my gems in
/usr/local/… Anyone got any idea what versions are installed in
Leopard? I’m thinking I’ll just continue using my own setup…

On Oct 16, 2007, at 5:57 PM, John T. wrote:

Nice. But I wonder what upgrading to Leopard will do to my
self-installed Ruby and Rails (using the Hivelogic instructions). I’ve
got the latest Ruby (1.8.6), Rails (1.2.5), and all my gems in
/usr/local/… Anyone got any idea what versions are installed in
Leopard? I’m thinking I’ll just continue using my own setup…

It is a good indicator, I think most of us will use our own setup
nonetheless. In general you’ll be fine as long as /usr/local/bin
appears in PATH before /usr/bin.

– fxn

On 16 Oct 2007, at 16:57, John T. wrote:

–Wagner

Nice. But I wonder what upgrading to Leopard will do to my
self-installed Ruby and Rails (using the Hivelogic instructions). I’ve
got the latest Ruby (1.8.6), Rails (1.2.5), and all my gems in
/usr/local/… Anyone got any idea what versions are installed in
Leopard? I’m thinking I’ll just continue using my own setup…

The current version of OS X has ruby in /usr/bin, I imagine Leopard
will be the same.

Fred

On 10/16/07, Xavier N. [email protected] wrote:

nonetheless. In general you’ll be fine as long as /usr/local/bin
appears in PATH before /usr/bin.

– fxn

Pretty much what I figured will happen.

Thanks.

Word to the wise…

I have yet to be able to get FreeImage compiled on leopard… actually
I have compiled it with dreaded symbol not found errors, linking issue
… etc

So all of you with apps that use image_science maybe delayed a bit
before you can get it working. The image_science gem will install, but
will die if you attempt to use it.

Does not seem that the FreeImage project is all that active. I have
tried contacting developers via the usual mailing lists and forums to
no avail.

I’m not sure how much I can say about it other than that until Leopard
is released and I don’t have to worry about the NDA even though this
is a FreeImage issue more so than leopard.

Any of the Image_science devs want to talk to me off list feel free.

Hopefully someone with better C++ skills than me will soon fix it.

On 10/16/07, John T. [email protected] wrote:


Michael S.
Linux Admin/Developer
AIM: mikesteinfeld
GTALK: [email protected]

Hi Michael, if it’s anything concerning Leopard, then it falls under the
NDA and you can only speak with Apple until the product is released.
I have learned this from reading the posts in the cocoa-dev mail list
where they have made this very clear to others that have posted similar
information.

-Conrad

On 10/16/07, Xavier N. [email protected] wrote:

nonetheless. In general you’ll be fine as long as /usr/local/bin
Unless you installed with macports in which case the custom install is
in /opt/local/bin

appears in PATH before /usr/bin.

– fxn


Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

John T. wrote:
[…]

Nice. But I wonder what upgrading to Leopard will do to my
self-installed Ruby and Rails (using the Hivelogic instructions).

This is one reason I’m using Locomotive at the moment. Self-contained
and doesn’t really conflict with anything else as far as I can see.

I’ve
got the latest Ruby (1.8.6), Rails (1.2.5), and all my gems in
/usr/local/… Anyone got any idea what versions are installed in
Leopard? I’m thinking I’ll just continue using my own setup…

I would think that it would be advantageous to at least look at what
Leopard provides before you make this decision.

Best,

Marnen Laibow-Koser
[email protected]

Hi, I’m using Mac Ports and it allows me to easily update every part of
the
ruby/rails native installation. Also, I have access to many other ports
outside of Rails.
Peace,

-Conrad

On Oct 16, 2550 BE, at 20:05, Frederick C. wrote:

The current version of OS X has ruby in /usr/bin, I imagine Leopard
will be the same.

A clean OS X doesn’t have /usr/local/ and I believe this will remain
in Leopard.
So ruby on rails installed in /usr/local/ should be safe.

Damian

On 10/16/07, John T. [email protected] wrote:

Nice. But I wonder what upgrading to Leopard will do to my
self-installed Ruby and Rails (using the Hivelogic instructions). I’ve
got the latest Ruby (1.8.6), Rails (1.2.5), and all my gems in
/usr/local/… Anyone got any idea what versions are installed in
Leopard? I’m thinking I’ll just continue using my own setup…

Just an update - am at an Apple Tech update where they are publicly
showing Leopard - Ruby is 1.8.6 and Rails is 1.2.3.

Nice to see they’re fairly up to date.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:

This is one reason I’m using Locomotive at the moment. Self-contained
and doesn’t really conflict with anything else as far as I can see.

Your reasons are your own I guess but you can very easily manipulate the
PATH environment variable and install anything anywhere.

The Mac OS uses /usr and ports uses /opt/local. Most open source stuff
has a default --prefix of /usr/local so it’s really just a matter of
putting /opt/local/bin ahead of /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin ahead of
/opt/local/bin in the PATH.

I would think that it would be advantageous to at least look at what
Leopard provides before you make this decision.

The reality is it will likely be out of date when it’s released. Since
you can’t update Xcode from any sort of automated mechanism I doubt the
Rails stuff will be much different. Ports are a good way to keep up to
date but I prefer to install my main workflow stuff from source so I can
control the exact versions.


Greg D.
Cyberfusion Consulting
http://cyberfusionconsulting.com/

Greg D. wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:

This is one reason I’m using Locomotive at the moment. Self-contained
and doesn’t really conflict with anything else as far as I can see.

Your reasons are your own I guess but you can very easily manipulate the
PATH environment variable and install anything anywhere.

The Mac OS uses /usr and ports uses /opt/local. Most open source stuff
has a default --prefix of /usr/local so it’s really just a matter of
putting /opt/local/bin ahead of /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin ahead of
/opt/local/bin in the PATH.

I know all that. But keeping it all in the Locomotive.app bundle is –
for my purposes in testing and development – even simpler.

I would think that it would be advantageous to at least look at what
Leopard provides before you make this decision.

The reality is it will likely be out of date when it’s released. Since
you can’t update Xcode from any sort of automated mechanism

I think, but am not positive, that it works with Software Update.

I doubt the
Rails stuff will be much different.

Again, I assume that Apple releases will come through Software Update.

Ports are a good way to keep up to
date but I prefer to install my main workflow stuff from source so I can
control the exact versions.

I’d be more inclined to do this for a production (or beta) server (and
why use Mac OS for that anyway?). But for my development computer, I
just want a simple installation so that I can focus on implementing the
application I’m trying to write, not the Ruby interpreter behind it.
That’s why I’m using Locomotive right now.


Greg D.
Cyberfusion Consulting
http://cyberfusionconsulting.com/

Best,

Marnen Laibow-Koser
[email protected]

Just an update - am at an Apple Tech update where they are publicly
showing Leopard - Ruby is 1.8.6 and Rails is 1.2.3.

But you would still need to install Xcode though? or not?

Elle

On 10/17/07, Greg D. [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, elle wrote:

But you would still need to install Xcode though? or not?

I don’t see how it can be avoided, especially if you plan to use any
gems that require compilation.

I don’t think the machine I used had the dev tools installed, but
didn’t think to look. I’d guess that Ruby and Rails are installed -
and as Greg said if you want to install any gems that require
compiling, you’ll need the tools installed. But that’s not a big deal

  • the dev tools come with the OS.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, elle wrote:

But you would still need to install Xcode though? or not?

I don’t see how it can be avoided, especially if you plan to use any
gems that require compilation.


Greg D.
Cyberfusion Consulting
http://cyberfusionconsulting.com/

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs