"Updating .gem files in vendor/cache" is unnecessary with --local flag #1244

Closed
dchelimsky opened this Issue Jun 16, 2011 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants

When running bundle install --local, after installing all the gems, bundler reports the following:

Updating .gem files in vendor/cache

This is causing problems that are not bundler's fault in our deployment environment, but it begs the question: why is bundle install --local writing anything in vendor/cache? If bundler is using vendor/cache as its source, then there should be no need to update anything.

Owner

indirect commented Jun 17, 2011

Well, the reason is that the cache needs to be updated regardless of --local. You might have different gems than you had last time (requiring an update to the cache). The only thing --local does is block bundler from talking to rubygems.org.

On Jun 16, 2011, at 3:46 PM, dchelimsky reply@reply.github.com wrote:

When running bundle install --local, after installing all the gems, bundler reports the following:

Updating .gem files in vendor/cache

This is causing problems that are not bundler's fault in our deployment environment, but it begs the question: why is bundle install --local writing anything in vendor/cache? If bundler is using vendor/cache as its source, then there should be no need to update anything.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
carlhuda#1244

$ bundle help install
...
       --local
              Do not attempt to connect to rubygems.org,  instead  using  just
              the  gems located in vendor/cache. Note that if a more appropri-
              ate platform-specific gem  exists  on  rubygems.org,  this  will
              bypass the normal lookup.

This led me to believe that it looks in vendor/cache only, and not elsewhere on the file system. I think the doc should say "and/or the local filesystem" if that's the intent. I also think a vendor/cache-only option would be useful. WDYT?

Owner

indirect commented Jun 18, 2011

Yeah, I think the docs need to be updated on that point. So far you are the only person to ask for a cache-only option, but I'm open to the possibility. :)

indirect closed this in d9dd6ed Sep 18, 2011

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment