Forum: Ruby on Rails Ruby 1.8.3

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.
alex (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 13:49
(Received via mailing list)
What's the current status for running Rails under 1.8.3?  Last I heard
it was a no-go, but I can't remember why.  As a related question, has
anyone tried the 1.8.4 preview?

The reason this has come up is because I've managed to mess up an Ubuntu
Hoary install:

$ dpkg --list | grep ruby
ii  libpgsql-ruby1 0.7.1-3  PostgreSQL extension library for ruby1.8
ii  libruby1.8     1.8.2-9~hoary1 Libraries necessary to run Ruby 1.8
ii  libzlib-ruby  0.6.0+ruby1.8. Extension library to use zlib from Ruby
ii  ruby1.8       1.8.2-9~hoary1 Interpreter of object-oriented
scripting lan
$
$ ruby1.8 -v
ruby 1.8.3 (2005-06-23) [i486-linux]
$

Which has me *mightily* confused.  I was messing around with the
multiverse and extras repositories last night (since removed from
sources.list), so something's probably crept in there, but I get those
same results after apt-get --purge remove ruby1.8 ruby; apt-get install
rails.

Anyone else seen this?  It's not critical, because I'm quite happy to
compile up 1.8.2 if I can't sort this out the 'proper' way, but it's an
interesting little blip nonetheless...
jeremy (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 13:49
(Received via mailing list)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Nov 10, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Alex Y. wrote:
> What's the current status for running Rails under 1.8.3?  Last I
> heard it was a no-go, but I can't remember why.  As a related
> question, has anyone tried the 1.8.4 preview?

On Rails 0.13.1 and Ruby 1.8.3 there was a Logger incompatibility
that resulted in empty logs.

The Rails 1.0 release candidates test fine with 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and
1.8.4p1.

jeremy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFDcyzgAQHALep9HFYRAuvgAKCJmWG9Br3EfNRASopaTSldAmhycgCgxjLh
VPGksRCP8uFQgS7J0eYhVFk=
=s9M3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ntoll (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 13:49
(Received via mailing list)
Alex,

Upgrading to Breezy will provide you with a great Ruby on Rails friendly
development environment. But remember to install all the ruby packages
with apt and then use gem to grab rails.

Have fun,

Nicholas
alex (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 13:49
(Received via mailing list)
ntollervey wrote:
> Alex,
>
> Upgrading to Breezy will provide you with a great Ruby on Rails friendly
> development environment. But remember to install all the ruby packages
> with apt and then use gem to grab rails.
>
> Have fun,
Apparently, you're mistaken: upgrading to Breezy provided me with a
doorstop, an afternoon of fun, and a fresh install of Debian Sarge.
Close, though...
bitserf (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 13:49
(Received via mailing list)
On 11/11/05, Alex Y. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> What's the current status for running Rails under 1.8.3?  Last I heard
> it was a no-go, but I can't remember why.  As a related question, has
> anyone tried the 1.8.4 preview?
Some folks are having problems with ActionWebService under 1.8.3+, I'm
investigating this. It appears to be a problem in our usage of the
versions of SOAP4R bundled with them.

Leon
tobias.witek (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 13:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 19:26 +0000, Alex Y. wrote:
> Close, though...
For whatever it's worth, I'm running a Breezy installation with ruby
1.8.3 and a gem installation of rails (0.14.3) and it works without a
problem.
I'm not quite sure how the (obviously) same installation base can yield
to such differing results, though...

t
ntoll (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 13:49
(Received via mailing list)
Alex,

I'm sorry to hear upgrading to Breezy sent your system FUBAR... :-(

I'm afraid, like Tobias, that my experience with such an upgrade was
without hitch. I too am not sure why the same installation base could
yield such differing results.

Better luck with Sarge!

Nicholas
alex (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 13:49
(Received via mailing list)
Nicholas H.Tollervey wrote:
> Alex,
>
> I'm sorry to hear upgrading to Breezy sent your system FUBAR... :-(
Oh, I'm sure none of it was anybody's fault but my own :-)

>
> I'm afraid, like Tobias, that my experience with such an upgrade was
> without hitch. I too am not sure why the same installation base could
> yield such differing results.
Well, I'm pretty sure there was something Fundamentally Wrong with the
dpkg cache, given my original problem, so relying on a broken system to
fix itself was pretty optimistic.

>
> Better luck with Sarge!
>
After a couple of hours tweaking around, trying to find out what was
wrong and steadily making matters worse - eventually ending up with a
new Ubuntu Breezy installer consistently hanging at the partitioning
stage (great for the nerves, given that there was a Windows partition
that *had* to be preserved) - I decided that discretion was the better
part of valour, and retreated to something I knew a little better...
alex (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 14:31
(Received via mailing list)
Jeremy K. wrote:
> On Rails 0.13.1 and Ruby 1.8.3 there was a Logger incompatibility  that
> resulted in empty logs.
>
> The Rails 1.0 release candidates test fine with 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and  1.8.4p1.

Fab - one less thing to worry about :-)
alex (Guest)
on 2005-11-12 15:00
(Received via mailing list)
Jeremy K. wrote:
> On Rails 0.13.1 and Ruby 1.8.3 there was a Logger incompatibility  that
> resulted in empty logs.
>
> The Rails 1.0 release candidates test fine with 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and  1.8.4p1.

Fab - one less thing to worry about :-)
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.