Add feature to install rbenv and ruby-build from tarball #25
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I've now removed the tarballs from the commit and made it possible to use a wrapper cookbook with the actual files. If you want to merge this, I'll add some documentation in the README file how to do this. |
|
@sPatrik sorry for the delayed response. It would be awesome if we had a way to extend rbenv installations to users who don't have internet access. I'm 👍 on the concept. It should reach out to a remote_file instead of a cookbook_file, though. Chef doesn't like having large files stored in it. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi
I've added the possibility to install rbenv and ruby-build from a tarball instead of git, since I'm deploying stuff on machines without internet access. Would you be interested in this? In this version I actually include the tarballs in the cookbook, which might be a bad idea, I'm going to look into changing it so it can be set up from a "wrapper" cookbook instead.
If you're interested in this functionality, I'll clean it up a bit and update this PR, otherwise I'll just hack it to work for me. So I wouldn't really recommend merging this in it's current shape.