# I have to be missing something simple here **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [February 19, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/i-have-to-be-missing-something-simple-here/160701 "2009-02-19T00:10:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/i-have-to-be-missing-something-simple-here/160701/1 "2009-02-19T00:10:43Z")
I have some code that was written in the Ruby-1.8ish era. However, the newer versions append the version number to all library/etc filenames, which is causing problems- for example, “/usr/local/bin/ ruby” no longer exists, it’s “/usr/local/bin/ruby19”. I’d stay with 1.8 but when I try to run the software on the new system I’m trying to set up (FreeBSD) it complains that gzip library isn’t present. I know from Googling that zlib was included with Ruby starting with 1.8, so I’m not quite sure what’s going on there. Rather than fiddle with that, I thought I’d just get a newer version (1.9.1 is the current for FreeBSD 7.1, IIRC), but then I run into the above mentioned filename problems. Am I missing something? Surely it should be more backward compatible than that… I thought the problem might be that the FreeBSD packages were broken, but compiling from source results in the same problem. Should I just set up links or rename everything to the old filenames? Was there some drastic change in Ruby that necessitated the versions not commingle? Argh. Thanks for any input, Jim ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/i-have-to-be-missing-something-simple-here/160701/2 "2009-02-19T01:59:00Z")
removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > current for FreeBSD 7.1, IIRC), but then I run into the above > Jim Jim, I’m competent only to comment on part of your problem. I know this: If you have Ruby 1.8.x installed, and then also install 1.9.x, the installation process will keep them separate by appending …1.9 to all (I HOPE all!) the 1.9 components. That’s what happened on my Kubuntu Linux OS. What implications this might have for the internals of various Ruby scripts of which any particular piece of software s composed I can only conjecture. I think you may have two Ruby’s installed on your OS. For the present, I don’t think there’s a realistic alternative to this setup. I’m NOT sure how best to manage it, however. Still learning. t. – ```auto Tom C., MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226 << removed_email_address@domain.invalid >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website) << sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog) ``` ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 3:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/i-have-to-be-missing-something-simple-here/160701/3 "2009-02-19T15:37:34Z")
On Feb 18, 7:58 pm, Tom C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > with that, I thought I’d just get a newer version (1.9.1 is the > > Thanks for any input, > > I think you may have two Ruby’s installed on your OS. For the present, I > > don’t think there’s a realistic alternative to this setup. I’m NOT sure > > how best to manage it, however. Still learning. > > t. Tom- Thanks for the input. Nope, only one Ruby- I’ve tried it several different ways. I did notice in the changelog for 1.9.0 that there are several “severe” incompatible changes, so perhaps that’s why they’re segregating the versions like that. (I’d love to hear it if anyone knows!) For the moment I’m going to fall back to 1.8.0.111 and try to get zlib working. My other concern is that I don’t know if all the current extension binding packages (pango, glib2, gtk2, etc etc) are going to play nicely with it. Sigh. I wouldn’t mind _that_ much except finding older versions of this stuff can be an immense pain in the butt, and it’s a crap shoot which versions work together. Hmm, a compatibility table would be nice… Thanks again- Jim ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/i-have-to-be-missing-something-simple-here/160701/4 "2009-02-19T16:06:28Z")
removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > > > Was there some drastic change in Ruby that necessitated the versions > > > Ruby scripts of which any particular piece of software s composed I can > > > Tom- > > > play nicely with it. Sigh. I wouldn’t mind _that_ much except > > > finding older versions of this stuff can be an immense pain in the > > > butt, and it’s a crap shoot which versions work together. Hmm, a > > > compatibility table would be nice… > > Thanks again- > Jim Don’t know if this helps or not, but… I use 1.8.7 for most of my work and everything _I_ needs seems to be available and working for it. Not so with 9.1. When I recently reinstalled my kubuntu linux, I found that somehow 9.1 had been installed by something, somehow, without my knowledge. It was causing me some problems, relative to my 1.8.7 installation. I removed them both, installed 1.8.7 (from source), got it working, then installed 9.1 from Synaptic package manager. Everything’s working great, other than that I cannot find everything I need for 9.1, yet. I expect Libraries will come available over time. So…you might want to try 1.8.7, after doing some housecleaning. t. – ```auto Tom C., MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226 << removed_email_address@domain.invalid >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website) << sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog) ``` ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/i-have-to-be-missing-something-simple-here/160701/5 "2009-02-19T21:52:30Z")
unknown wrote: > I have some code that was written in the Ruby-1.8ish era. However, > the newer versions append the version number to all library/etc > filenames, which is causing problems- for example, “/usr/local/bin/ > ruby” no longer exists, it’s “/usr/local/bin/ruby19”. This is a compile-time option: ./configure --program-suffix=19 > I’d stay with > 1.8 but when I try to run the software on the new system I’m trying to > set up (FreeBSD) it complains that gzip library isn’t present. If you’re trying to run code written under 1.8, then you definitely need 1.8. There are many differences between 1.8 and 1.9, some minor but many substantial. Hence many people need to have both 1.8 and 1.9 installed simultaneously, and the suffix is one way to achieve this. I’d argue that 1.8.7 is a third incompatible variant, but let’s not get into that now 🙂 Suffice to say, if your code was written under 1.8, then you should install a recent 1.8.6. > I know from Googling that zlib was included with Ruby starting with > 1.8, so I’m not quite sure what’s going on there. It is. How are you installing ruby - from ports? Compiling from source? If compiling from source it should be easy to debug. If the zlib extension isn’t being build, you’ll find the answer in ext/zlib/mkmf.log. I believe zlib is part of FreeBSD base system, so you’ll need to check what’s happening. > Was there some drastic change in Ruby that necessitated the versions > not commingle? Argh. Yes 🙂