You have already activated X, but your Gemfile requires Y

W

13

188

When running rake I get this error:

You have already activated rake 0.9.2, but your Gemfile requires rake 0.8.7. Consider using bundle exec.

Using bundle exec rake instead of just rake seems to work, but is it the best way to fix this?

Wilmerwilmette answered 11/6, 2011 at 19:15 Comment(1)

This is also what makes RVM such a great tool. It would allow you to have a separate set of gems for each of these projects so you wouldn't have to worry about this happening again. – Flowers 11/6, 2011 at 20:24

E

117

Using bundle exec is the right way to do this.

Basically what's happening is that you've updated rake to 0.9.2 which now conflicts with the version specified in your Gemfile. Previously the latest version of rake you had matched the version in your Gemfile, so you didn't get any warning when simply using rake.

Yehuda Katz (one of the original Bundler developers) explains it all in this blog post.

To avoid typing bundle exec ... all the time, you could set up an alias or function in your shell for commands you commonly use with Bundler. For example this is what I use for Rake:

$ type bake
bake is a function
bake () 
{ 
    bundle exec rake "$@"
}

Elenoraelenore answered 18/6, 2011 at 0:42 Comment(1)

The blog post doesn't really explain much. The real question is: why doesn't the virgin ruby get the right dependencies and why then complain about having the wrong ones? – Raster 19/7, 2016 at 17:3

E

177

Try bundle clean --force

It removes every system gem not in this bundle

Eliott answered 26/5, 2018 at 11:47 Comment(2)

ran into this error in RubyMine when running rspec, bundle clean --force, and then RubyMine will automatically install the corrected versions when running rspec again. – Egide 11/11, 2022 at 0:22

This wasn't enough for me, a gem update of the concerned gem helped resolve the issue. – Fructidor 7/1 at 17:54

E

117

Using bundle exec is the right way to do this.

Basically what's happening is that you've updated rake to 0.9.2 which now conflicts with the version specified in your Gemfile. Previously the latest version of rake you had matched the version in your Gemfile, so you didn't get any warning when simply using rake.

Yehuda Katz (one of the original Bundler developers) explains it all in this blog post.

To avoid typing bundle exec ... all the time, you could set up an alias or function in your shell for commands you commonly use with Bundler. For example this is what I use for Rake:

$ type bake
bake is a function
bake () 
{ 
    bundle exec rake "$@"
}

Elenoraelenore answered 18/6, 2011 at 0:42 Comment(1)

The blog post doesn't really explain much. The real question is: why doesn't the virgin ruby get the right dependencies and why then complain about having the wrong ones? – Raster 19/7, 2016 at 17:3

P

73

If you have a reason to keep the current version of rake (or whatever other gem is causing the problem), matt is correct, the best way to do this is to run bundle exec. This uses the version specified in your Gemfile instead of using the newest version of the gem you have installed. (nathan.f77 has a good solution below if you don't want to type bundle exec every time you run rake)

Otherwise, if there is no reason not to update rake, you can run

bundle update rake

This will actually update your Gemfile.lock to use the newest version of rake instead of having to run bundle exec every time.

Note: if you run just bundle update this will update all the gems in your Gemfile instead of just rake, which probably isn't what you want, because if something breaks in your application you won't know which gem update caused it.

The less recommended way to keep the older version without having to use bundle exec is to uninstall the newer versions of rake.

$ gem uninstall rake

Select gem to uninstall:
 1. rake-0.8.7
 2. rake-0.9.2
 3. All versions
> 2
Successfully uninstalled rake-0.9.2

This works, but if you are working with multiple apps that use different versions of rake, this can be a pain because you will find yourself constantly having to install and uninstall different versions.

Patel answered 7/7, 2011 at 19:19 Comment(3)

This worked for me. For some reason, there was only one version (0.8.7) installed. So first I did gem install rake. Then gem uninstall rake and chose 0.9.2. – Alfonzoalford 10/7, 2011 at 23:0

bundle update will also update any gems without versions specified to the latest version available. That may not be what you want. bundle update rake would be more precies. – Lapidify 15/8, 2011 at 9:30

I have the same problem with public_suffix instead of rake. Running bundle update public_suffix has no effect, unfortunately. – Neoimpressionism 29/4, 2018 at 2:35

C

15

Last time that this happened to me, I had updated all my gems. I did a gem uninstall rake and it listed version options. I picked the newer one, and then I did not have to use bundle exec anymore.

Basically, if you use bundle exec it uses whatever gem version is in installed by your bundle, so what is in the Gemfile. Without bundle exec it uses whatever version is your system default.

Chore answered 11/6, 2011 at 19:19 Comment(0)

L

10

Ooh! The Katz article is excellent!

I like this solution the best:

bundle install --binstubs

so that you can now type

bin/rake .stuff.

For someone like myself who is developing both 2.3 and 3.0.9 apps, this makes me feel a lot better.

Lindgren answered 17/6, 2011 at 16:18 Comment(0)

I

9

bundle exec is correct, but you don't want to be typing it every time.

You can put this in your .bashrc or .zshrc:

# Automatically invoke bundler for rake, if necessary.
rake() { if [ -e ./Gemfile.lock ]; then bundle exec rake "$@"; else /usr/bin/env rake "$@"; fi; }

Indifference answered 6/8, 2011 at 5:33 Comment(1)

To clarify, the .bashrc file is probably located in your home directory [~/.bashrc]. This file gets loaded every time you open up a new terminal window. – Patel 23/3, 2012 at 19:15

D

6

Just used: bundle update

In my case, it solved my dependency version problem with Gemfile.lock file, it updated the packages with the latest version.

Divinity answered 17/3, 2021 at 11:4 Comment(1)

Thanks! This worked for me. Here is the documentation for bundle update: bundler.io/man/bundle-update.1.html – Swimming 18/11, 2022 at 13:7

T

2

You might as well want to delete the Gemfile.lock file and run bundle install or just bundle, then try again.

Transmissible answered 6/10, 2020 at 13:42 Comment(0)

D

2

Sometimes, for some reason, the latest versions of gems must be installed.
Sometimes, there is the need to run older projects based on older versions.
Sometimes, the fastest way to solve those kinds of problems is to delete Gemfile.lock and run bundle exec. That will generate a new Gemfile.lock with gems that we have actually installed.
If everything is working correctly, this is the easiest way.

Daimon answered 10/11, 2022 at 12:3 Comment(0)

S

1

This happens when there are different version in Gemfile and Gemfile.lock, in mycase am having strscan (3.0.3) in Gemfile.lock and ruby 3.0.4 in Gemfile, just delete the Gemfile.lock and run bundle install or bundle update

Secor answered 26/7, 2022 at 21:22 Comment(0)

M

0

Another way to not type it every time is with a Makefile, for example

rake :
    bundle exec rake

Misname answered 12/7, 2020 at 20:59 Comment(0)

D

0

the error already says what to do here. as it suggests that the gemfile requires rake 0.8.7. but the other rake version is already activated. so use

gem list

command to list all the gem file. then see what gemfile you want to delete. In your case it is rake 0.9.2 . so delete this by going into the folder.

cd /var/lib/gems/3.0.0/gems

and delete the desired folder. then update the gem with this command.

bundle update

Discretion answered 12/2, 2023 at 16:26 Comment(0)

A

0

gem uninstall rake -v 0.9.2

gem install rake -v 0.8.7

Aleph answered 28/2 at 16:13 Comment(0)

Recommended topics

Hot tags