Why the hell would you do a bundle install on a node ?
Berkshelf is of use on your workstation to create a pack of cookbooks with correct versions to distribute as tarball or to upload to chef-server.
If your day to day workstation is a lightweight Vm you recreate often, include chef-dk or do bundle install in the source template box…
I don’t see any use case where you would do a bundle install from a cookbook dir within a chef run, you should install needed gems for a recipe with chef-gem resource if you need it inside your recipes.
Please enlight me if I missed your point…
Le 2 janv. 2015 22:21, Nico Kadel-Garcia firstname.lastname@example.org a écrit :
From: AJ Christensen [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 3:14 AM
Subject: [chef] Re: berkshelf gem listed as a requirement in cookbook gemfile
Sorry for the follow up.
It’s worth mentioning the ChefDk includes gecode libs, pre-built, for all
supported target platforms, which greatly alleviates the installation heat-cost of
On machines where this (ChefDK) is not present and the prerequisite
environment variable and system libraries have not been configured, a full
installation of gecode from source will be automatically handled by the gem (via
It’s problematic to compile. I mentioned this week: it requires a C++ compiler, takes hours on a modest VM or lightweight host, especially if the memory allocated is light, and it can cause other issues if the system runs out of swap and RAM.
Lead DevOps Engineer
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:07 PM, AJ Christensen firstname.lastname@example.org
chefdk includes bundler and berkshelf and the Gemfile will resolve.
Please try to resolve and report back.
I think it’s OK. In some projects, it’s not necessary to use a Gemfile any more.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:03 PM, William Jimenez
I’m noticing that the berkshelf gem is listed as a requirement in
Gemfiles of a lot of cookbooks I’ve been working with lately. I
suspect that this is bad behavior now that ChefDK is the recommended
deployment method for berkshelf. Just wanted to confirm with you all that
my reasoning is correct.