Forum: Ruby need quick check on my rubygems install procedure

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Tom C. (Guest)
on 2008-12-13 05:15
(Received via mailing list)
I'm running Kubuntu Linux 8.10 - a fresh install. I'm setting up Ruby
now.

I've done this before, but it takes very little for me to be in over my
head, so I need a quick review from someone who actually 'has a clue'.

I have just installed Ruby 1.8.7 from the source available at the Ruby
website. No problems. I then downloaded from Rubyforge the
rubygems-1.3.1.tgz module, unpacked it, and launched its setup.rb file.
There was no console response other than a new command line. I assume
this is normal.

Then....I issue a gem -v, and get back "1.2.0".

I'm lost at this point. I thought I just installed v. 1.3.1.

"which gem" produces "/usr/bin/gem".

Looking there, I see both a "gem" and a "gem1.9".

Oh boy. Two versions. "gem1.9 -v" also produces "1.2.0". Now I'm really
confused. And why "gem1.9"? What's THAT about?

Being very suspicious at this point, I issue "which ruby1.9" and get
back "/usr/bin/ruby1.9". "ruby1.9 -v" produces "ruby 1.9.0 (2008-06-20
revision 17482) [i486-linux]". This is just nuts. I didn't install this.
Where did it come from?

If I'm going to use my new Ruby 1.8.7 and want it to use the latest
rubygems, which I presume IS somewhere in my filesystem, what do I need
to do? Anything at all?

Can someone please untangle this for me, so I can just get back to work
with my ruby learning...?

Thanks (very much!) in advance.

Tom
Tom C. (Guest)
on 2008-12-13 05:28
(Received via mailing list)
Tom C. wrote:
> assume this is normal.
> really confused. And why "gem1.9"? What's THAT about?
> Can someone please untangle this for me, so I can just get back to
> work with my ruby learning...?
>
> Thanks (very much!) in advance.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
An update - thought I'd try to install a gem, just to see the response.
It wasn't good, and I don't know what it means...

$ sudo gem install RedCloth
[sudo] password for tomc:
Building native extensions.  This could take a while...
ERROR:  Error installing RedCloth:
        ERROR: Failed to build gem native extension.

/usr/bin/ruby1.9 extconf.rb install RedCloth
extconf.rb:1:in `require': no such file to load -- mkmf (LoadError)
        from extconf.rb:1:in `<main>'


Gem files will remain installed in
/var/lib/gems/1.9.0/gems/RedCloth-4.1.1 for inspection.
Results logged to
/var/lib/gems/1.9.0/gems/RedCloth-4.1.1/ext/redcloth_scan/gem_make.out
tomc@tomc-desktop:~$

I send this along simply thinking it may give additional useful
information.

Tom
Phillip G. (Guest)
on 2008-12-14 03:52
(Received via mailing list)
Tom C. wrote:

>> If I'm going to use my new Ruby 1.8.7 and want it to use the latest
>> rubygems, which I presume IS somewhere in my filesystem, what do I
>> need to do? Anything at all?

You'll need to compile it without suffix (how escapes me right now, I'm
afraid, but it is probably ./configure --no-suffix or something like
that), and issue "make install" after you are done. However, the easiest
way is possibly to apt-get install ruby1.8, and change any symlinks to
ruby1.8, instead of ruby1.9, so that the ruby command is actually
ruby1.8 (clear as mud?)

And Ruby 1.9 could be used by Amarok, or Kubuntu's own scripts. However,
multiple versions can co-exist somewhat happily (Depends on how the
scripts by the 3rd party are written. If you are unlucky, they simply
assume that /bin/ruby == /bin/ruby1.9 and could break).

> extconf.rb:1:in `require': no such file to load -- mkmf (LoadError)
> information.
Sorta. For one, it shows that Ruby 1.8 was *not* installed. At least not
properly. Do you have a ruby1.8 executable?

Also, you'll have to install the build-essentials package to get a
compiler toolchain.

Cheers,
-P

P.S.: I'm not using Linux anymore, so take my help with a grain of salt.
Harry K. (Guest)
on 2008-12-14 04:58
(Received via mailing list)
> /usr/bin/ruby1.9 extconf.rb install RedCloth
> I send this along simply thinking it may give additional useful information.
>
> Tom
>
>

Is this thread any help?

http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/122871

Harry
Robert H. (Guest)
on 2008-12-14 05:46
> Looking there, I see both a "gem" and a "gem1.9".

I still wonder why debian uses versioned binaries instead of versioned
directories/AppDirs.
Tom C. (Guest)
on 2008-12-14 16:45
(Received via mailing list)
Marc H. wrote:
>> Looking there, I see both a "gem" and a "gem1.9".
>>
>
> I still wonder why debian uses versioned binaries instead of versioned
> directories/AppDirs.
>
Even from my position of great ignorance, this seems like a good
question. It does occur to me, however, that version-labeling the dirs
along may not be safe enough in that their contents are not as
positively labeled that way (unless I'm totally misunderstanding things
here - in which case ignore me!).

t.
Tom C. (Guest)
on 2008-12-14 19:19
(Received via mailing list)
Harry K. wrote:
>> extconf.rb:1:in `require': no such file to load -- mkmf (LoadError)
>>
>
>
I'm not sure. For one, I'm not confident I understand it. But if I do,
the problem it addresses is a debian package problem, and I've install
ruby 1.8.7 by compiling from source. I've verified the success of the
compile. I get a ruby version of 1.8.7, and irb fires up, etc. My focus
is now on the problem of getting a working install of rubygems. I'll
address that in a separate email.

Thanks.

t.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2008-12-16 01:12
(Received via mailing list)
On Dec 12, 2008, at 19:05 PM, Tom C. wrote:
> file. There was no console response other than a new command line. I
> assume this is normal.

This is not normal.  The output is exceedingly verbose by default
(mkdir, install, and release notes).

> Then....I issue a gem -v, and get back "1.2.0".
>
> I'm lost at this point. I thought I just installed v. 1.3.1.

I suspect that you have another ruby installed with it's own RubyGems
install.  `gem env` may be illuminating.

> didn't install this. Where did it come from?
>
> If I'm going to use my new Ruby 1.8.7 and want it to use the latest
> rubygems, which I presume IS somewhere in my filesystem, what do I
> need to do? Anything at all?

I suspect the ruby you built is in /usr/local/ and your PATH has /usr/
bin before /usr/local/bin.

> Can someone please untangle this for me, so I can just get back to
> work with my ruby learning...?

Uninstall any ruby that came with your OS and things should be fine.
You may need to reinstall your hand-built ruby and rubygems, though.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.