Forum: Ruby on Rails installed ruby ver 1.9 but not working with rails 2.3.2

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.
VS (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 01:17
(Received via mailing list)
Hello,

I'm using OS X leopard  and Rails 2.3.2

I've installed ruby by downloading the source and compiling it.

Now, I have

ruby -v
1.8.6
ruby19 -v
1.9

How can I get ruby19 to replace ruby ?

Also, when I do ruby19 script/server, I get the following error :
Missing the Rails 2.3.2 gem.

Any Ideas ?

Thank you.
-VS.
Frederick C. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 01:18
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 16, 10:11 pm, VS <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> ruby19 -v
> 1.9

1.9 is several months old. You almost certainly want 1.9.1

Fred
Greg D. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 01:30
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM, VS <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
> How can I get ruby19 to replace ruby ?

You can create a link from the ruby19 to the current ruby.

`which ruby` will tell you the path to the current ruby.  I'll pretend
it said "/usr/bin/ruby".

Move the current ruby someplace else.

mv /usr/bin/ruby /some/place/else

`which ruby19` will tell you the path to the ruby19.

Add a link:

ln -s /path/to/ruby19 /usr/bin/ruby



--
Greg D.
http://destiney.com/
VS (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 02:19
(Received via mailing list)
Thanks Greg.

Now when I do ruby -v, I get
ruby 1.9.1p0 (2009-01-30 revision 21907) [i386-darwin9.6.0]

But when I run script/server in my rails directory, I get :
Missing the Rails 2.3.2 gem.

Any ideas ?

Thanks so much,
-VS
Conrad T. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 02:46
(Received via mailing list)
Hi, you'll need to execute
gem install rails

Good luck,

-Conrad
VS (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 02:53
(Received via mailing list)
Thanks Conrad. I've already done that...

When I do 'gem install rails', I get :
Successfully installed rails-2.3.2
1 gem installed

Now, when I go to the rails project directory and do 'script/server',
I still get :
Missing the Rails 2.3.2 gem.

It's really frustrating.. Any Ideas ??

Thank you.
-VS.
Greg D. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 03:14
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 7:52 PM, VS <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
>
> It's really frustrating.. Any Ideas ??

What's your script/server look like?

Can you run script/console without issue?


--
Greg D.
http://destiney.com/
VS (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 03:19
(Received via mailing list)
Yes, I get the same error on script/console. Here's my script/server
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../config/boot'
require 'commands/server'

Thank you.
-VS
Greg D. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 04:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:18 PM, VS <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
>
> Yes, I get the same error on script/console. Here's my script/server
> #!/usr/bin/env ruby
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../config/boot'
> require 'commands/server'
>
> Thank you.
> -VS

Looks normal to me.

What RAILS_GEM_VERSION is in your config/environment.rb ?



--
Greg D.
http://destiney.com/
VS (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 04:17
(Received via mailing list)
Thanks Greg. Here's the line from config/environment.rb
RAILS_GEM_VERSION = '2.3.2' unless defined? RAILS_GEM_VERSION

Any ideas ? this is driving me crazy...  Everything was working under
ruby 1.8.6

Thanks,
-VS
VS (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 04:21
(Received via mailing list)
This might mean something... When I run 'gem install rails' as the
local user( in the previous attempt I ran this as root), I get
WARNING:  Installing to ~/.gem since /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8 and
    /usr/bin aren't both writable.
WARNING:  You don't have /Users/vs/.gem/ruby/1.8/bin in your PATH,
    gem executables will not run.

Any ideas ?

Thank you.
-VS
VS (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 04:27
(Received via mailing list)
update: if I do "sudo gem install rails", I get :
Successfully installed rails-2.3.2
1 gem installed

But if I do script/server: I still get:
Missing the Rails 2.3.2 gem

What am I missing ?

Thanks,
-VS
VS (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 04:33
(Received via mailing list)
This is definetely working with ruby 1.8.6.  Here's the output using
the old version of ruby :
oldruby script/server
=> Booting Mongrel
=> Rails 2.3.2 application starting on http://0.0.0.0:3000
=> Call with -d to detach
=> Ctrl-C to shutdown server

But when I try :
ruby script/server,
Missing the Rails 2.3.2 gem

Error has to do with ruby 1.9.1p0

Thanks,
-VS
Rick (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 05:19
(Received via mailing list)
When you built ruby 1.9.1 from source, did you go all the way to make
install?  If so, what was the root (config --prefix=/???) that you
gave prior to the initial make?

I've found that just linking in the executable with major releases of
anything is often the shortest path to disfunction.

Here's  a sequence you could use to build a parallel RoR suite.

1) Identify a new root for your RoR install suite like: /opt/RoR.
Create that directory and make yourself be owner (so you won't need to
sudo all the time).

2) In your Ruby source directory type:
   2a) ./configure --prefix=/opt/RoR
   2b) make
   2c) make install
You'll now have /opt/RoR/bin, /opt/RoR/lib, ... with your new ruby in
place.

3) In a term window type:
   3a) PATH=/opt/RoR/bin:$PATH
   3b) ruby --version   You should see something like:
      ruby 1.9.1p0 (2009-01-30 revision 21907) [powerpc-darwin9.6.0]
   3c) gem install rake rack
   3d) gem install rails

Now you've got a new RoR suite that's available if your path is
modified as in step 3a, else you've got your original RoR setup
(assuming you haven't already blown it away).

Rick
Conrad T. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 06:13
(Received via mailing list)
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2009, at 7:27 PM, VS <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

> Thanks,
>>
>>> RAILS_GEM_VERSION = '2.3.2' unless defined? RAILS_GEM_VERSION
>>
>>
>>>> What RAILS_GEM_VERSION is in your config/environment.rb ?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Greg D.http://destiney.com/

Hi, is Rails being installed in the correct place?  Also, you'll need
to install thin if you're working with Rails 2.3.x and Ruby 1.9.1.
Thus, you should be able to install it by doing the following:

gem install thin

Good luck,

-Conrad
Conrad T. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 07:26
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 7:32 PM, VS <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:

> ruby script/server,
> > update: if I do "sudo gem install rails", I get :
> >
> >
> > > > Any ideas ? this is driving me crazy...  Everything was working under
> > > > > > #!/usr/bin/env ruby
> > > > > --
> > > > > Greg D.http://destiney.com/
>

OK, here's a chart that you should following:

                    ( mongrel compatible )    ( thin compatible )   (
wberick compatible )  ( passenger compatible )

ruby 1.8.6                    Y                              Y
              Y                                  Y

ruby 1.9.1                    N                              Y
              N                                  Y

Good luck,

-Conrad
Frederick C. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 11:21
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 17, 2:27 am, VS <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> update: if I do "sudo gem install rails", I get :
> Successfully installed rails-2.3.2
> 1 gem installed
>
> But if I do script/server: I still get:
> Missing the Rails 2.3.2 gem
>
> What am I missing ?
>

I bet that the gem executable is still the ruby 1.8 version (ie that
installs gems for ruby 1.8). The one that installs for ruby 1.9 is
probably called gem19 or something like that.

Fred
"Wolas!" (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 11:22
(Received via mailing list)
When you followed gregs advice you ended up sort of "fooling" the ruby
command. now you have two of everything (2 rails gems, one under 1.8
and one under 1.9).

make sure you are calling the correct gem from the correct place. If i
were you, i would uninstall one of your ruby instalations (at this
point 1.8)
Nerdaniel (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 17:31
(Received via mailing list)
sudo gem19 install rails?
Greg D. (Guest)
on 2009-03-17 17:48
(Received via mailing list)
2009/3/17 "Wolas!" <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
> When you followed gregs advice you ended up sort of "fooling" the ruby
> command. now you have two of everything (2 rails gems, one under 1.8
> and one under 1.9).

There's no such thing as a "ruby command" (at least not in my shell).
There is a ruby binary, and there's a path that might find it
depending on where you put it and what directories your path contains.
 Being able to change the path so it can find a different ruby binary
other than the one that came with the system is a feature of the
system, seriously.. no fooling.  You can have your entire ruby
toolchain living out of /some/place/weird while completely ignoring
the ruby that came with the system, you only have to adjust the paths
to include the weird place.  That's how it works, it's not magic, no
fooling.

> make sure you are calling the correct gem from the correct place. If i
> were you, i would uninstall one of your ruby instalations (at this
> point 1.8)

That's all together not necessary.  I suspect all of my development
systems have two ruby installs.  I ignore the one that came with the
system and install my own whereever I want.  I update my bashrc so it
knows about my intentions and that's about it.


--
Greg D.
http://destiney.com/
"Wolas!" (Guest)
on 2009-03-20 11:36
(Received via mailing list)
Thanks for the lesson greg.

Maybe i wasnt using the correct terminlogy, that having been done by
years of explaining such concepts to people that dont know what
binaries are and english not being my first language.

Nevertheless, VS is using one version of ruby with one set of gems and
running the other version which doesnt happen to have those set of
gems, and this happened by following your advice. That is what i was
trying to say.

so, here are my 2 cents. use defaults for starters, dont go for the
installing in som/weird/place/, have one version of ruby and one set
of gems, like this you are less likely to run into these problems.
Frederick C. (Guest)
on 2009-03-20 11:51
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 17, 3:47 pm, Greg D. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> 2009/3/17 "Wolas!" <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
>
> > make sure you are calling the correct gem from the correct place. If i
> > were you, i would uninstall one of your ruby instalations (at this
> > point 1.8)
>
> That's all together not necessary.  I suspect all of my development
> systems have two ruby installs.  I ignore the one that came with the
> system and install my own whereever I want.  I update my bashrc so it
> knows about my intentions and that's about it.

The problem here is that's not what happened. Rather than using bashrc
etc.. to put one install of ruby ahead of the other, ruby1.9 was
renamed  to ruby without gem1.9 being renamed to gem (and similarly
for all other ruby related binaries (eg irb))

Fred
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.