Forum: Ruby dbm on RedHat

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.
David Brodbeck (Guest)
on 2009-05-22 21:23
(Received via mailing list)
A user I support is trying to use the dbm module that's part of Ruby's
standard library, but it doesn't seem to be installed.  We're running
RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.3, with Ruby 1.8.5 installed via RPM from
RedHat's repository.  We also have Ruby Gems configured.  Trying to
require dbm gives this error:

brodbd@patas:~$ irb
irb(main):001:0> require "dbm"
LoadError: no such file to load -- dbm
  from /opt/ruby-gems/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:
27:in `gem_original_require'
  from /opt/ruby-gems/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:
27:in `require'
  from (irb):1
irb(main):002:0>

I can't figure out what additional packages I need to install to make
dbm available, and I'm hoping someone here can help.

I apologize if this is a dumb question, but I'm not terribly familiar
with Ruby, and my attempts to find an answer via Google haven't been
successful.

--

David Brodbeck
System A., Linguistics
University of Washington
David Brodbeck (Guest)
on 2009-05-26 23:03
(Received via mailing list)
On May 22, 2009, at 10:21 AM, David Brodbeck wrote:

> 27:in `gem_original_require'
> haven't been successful.
Experimenting a bit more, it doesn't seem to be related to the
environment changes I made to install Ruby Gems, either:

brodbd@patas:~$ unset RUBYOPT ; unset RUBYLIB ; irb
irb(main):001:0> require 'dbm'
LoadError: no such file to load -- dbm
  from (irb):1:in `require'
  from (irb):1


--

David Brodbeck
System A., Linguistics
University of Washington
Kyle S. (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 00:41
(Received via mailing list)
I've got a bunch of CentOS 5 boxes here, 5.0 through 5.3.  None of
them include dbm by default, but they all include gdbm.  If you don't
need "real" dbm, gdbm is probably better anyway ( personal opinion :)

If you want to be really really compatible everywhere, you can use
sdbm, which is pure ruby, or at least included with the core ruby
code.

Libraries dbm gdbm and sdbm all use the same calls (prettymuch), so
you can write your code to use whichever one it can find, as long as
the lack compatibility is something you can live with.

For speed purposes, dbm and gdbm seem the same to me, and sdbm is rather
slow.

The big upside of gdbm is that the database files it creates aren't as
dependent on the version of the library: newer versions can read older
databases.  With a dbm database, you need that exact same version to
read or modify the library, so it's harder to move it from machine to
machine.

--Kyle
Kyle S. (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 00:46
(Received via mailing list)
Oops, should have said
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.