Reputation: 22610
Is there any substantive advantage (for the user) to using the downloadable installer for Vagrant over simply doing gem install vagrant
, other than the fact the non-Rubyists can more easily get started using it?
I'm introducing Vagrant at a company I'm doing work for, and someone asked why I wasn't having everyone use the installer. I prefer using gem install vagrant
because (besides being more familiar and installing into "normal" places) they're going to need to do gem install whatever
at some point anyway and might as well have everything set up.
I'd like to know, however, whether there are advantages (once everything is set up) of doing it one way or the other.
My suspicion is that the installer is the preferred method simply because it cuts down on support questions that distract the developers from contributing more to the project, and because it reduces the barrier to entry. Those are both good reasons, but don't necessarily carry enough weight for me to have everyone switch now that they're all set up with Vagrant, Chef, VirtualBox, Ruby, Git, etc.
Upvotes: 1
Views: 397
Reputation: 1068
If I am not mistaken then the installer will be the only way to install Vagrant from version 1.1 and up.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 7466
The main advantage I see is when working with multiple versions of Ruby. Say you have RVM installed and gem install vagrant
under a certain version of ruby / in a certain gemset. It won't be available as a gem unless you are using that version of ruby with that gemset.
However I suspect that using the installer will place the vagrant
"binary" (ruby script) in /usr/local/bin or some such so that it is always available regardless of the currently active ruby.
for example, I installed the gem with rvm
$ which vagrant
/Users/chrislundquist/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p194/bin/vagrant
Upvotes: 2