# Ruby 1.9 binary on ruby-lang.org not built with zlib?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-1-9-binary-on-ruby-lang-org-not-built-with-zlib/154031>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [November 24, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-1-9-binary-on-ruby-lang-org-not-built-with-zlib/154031 "2008-11-24T18:40:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/d07c76/32.png) [@pod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pod)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-1-9-binary-on-ruby-lang-org-not-built-with-zlib/154031/1 "2008-11-24T18:40:26Z")

</div>

Hello Ruby fans.  
The binary 1.9 package that’s foudn on the ruby website doesn’t seem to  
either a) contain zlib.dll or b) have it statically linked in. This  
causes problems when trying to run gem.

I personally solved this by just installing my 1.9 over my old 1.8 and  
copying zlib1.dll to zlib.dll (found in ./bin).

Is this intended or an oversight? I imagine it’d stump people who go  
straight for the 1.9 download…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/d07c76/32.png) [@pod](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pod)\
**Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 10:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-1-9-binary-on-ruby-lang-org-not-built-with-zlib/154031/2 "2008-11-25T22:16:43Z")

</div>

> Is this intended or an oversight? I imagine it’d stump people who go  
> straight for the 1.9 download…

I’d ask core 🙂  
-=R