# Ruby's build system **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [October 29, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058 "2006-10-29T16:51:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cies)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058/1 "2006-10-29T16:51:11Z")
right now autotools, make and shell scripts are used to build ruby. i saw that yarv needs a version of ruby to be present in order to build it: right? (i dont know if this is a temporary dependency) but if ruby is needed to build ruby, we might aswell use a ruby buildsystem like rake or rant for building ruby? this would clearly have some disadvantages (difficulty of build ruby for a platform that has no ruby binaries yet), but it would be eating our own dog food though. just looking for some feedback. cies breijs. ---
**Author:** ![cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cies)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058/2 "2006-10-29T17:21:16Z")
On 10/29/06, cies [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > for a platform that has no ruby binaries yet), but it would be eating > our own dog food though. > > just looking for some feedback. > cies breijs. There was interest at RubyConf in converting the Ruby build system to use mkrf (Kevin C.'s new replacement for mkmf, which needs a new name, IMO). In order for this to be possible, we need to make sure that ‘rake’ itself runs under miniruby. ---
**Author:** ![cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:43am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058/3 "2006-11-07T10:43:54Z")
cies wrote: > this would clearly have some disadvantages (difficulty of build ruby > for a platform that has no ruby binaries yet), but it would be eating > our own dog food though. Selfhosting is a nice exercise in brain self-surgery, but I think it’s more practical to bootstrap using an external environment that’s most likely to be present. I’m not sure I’d like the ruby build process to take too much time building a bloated miniruby just to build itself again for no practical benefit whatsoever. David V. ---
**Author:** ![cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:43am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058/4 "2006-11-07T10:43:56Z")
David V. wrote: > Selfhosting is a nice exercise in brain self-surgery, but I think it’s > more practical to bootstrap using an external environment that’s most > likely to be present. I’m not sure I’d like the ruby build process to > take too much time building a bloated miniruby just to build itself > again for no practical benefit whatsoever. > > David V. Yeah, but … “an external environment that’s most likely to be present” translates to “GNU/Linux/gcc”, doesn’t it? Which means MacOS and Windows lag. A bootstrap using an existing “Pure Ruby” (Ruby plus Rake plus RubyGems, etc.) makes a lot more sense. ---
**Author:** ![cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058/5 "2006-11-07T10:44:01Z")
On 10/29/06, David V. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > again for no practical benefit whatsoever. It already builds a miniruby that can probably run rake. This would just extend the already self-hosting Ruby build process to the earlier possible point in the chain. ---
**Author:** ![cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058/6 "2006-11-07T10:44:02Z")
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > translates to “GNU/Linux/gcc”, doesn’t it? Which means MacOS and Windows > lag. A bootstrap using an existing “Pure Ruby” (Ruby plus Rake plus > RubyGems, etc.) makes a lot more sense. Short of implementing a C compiler in Ruby (I give it a month or two before someone announces a 0.0.1 version of that), those requirements aren’t going away - you still have to shell out to a C compiler, which is by far where most build system porting problems lurk (compiler switch semantics, different shell escaping, directory names with spaces innem.) I guess the original poster’s point was porting the build environment to Ruby, which, while removing a dependency some people don’t have (A POSIX build environment), would introduce a dependency most people that want a ruby interpreter don’t have (a ruby interpreter). You’d need -some- form or Ruby to bootstrap (a precompiled miniruby perhaps), and if you’re geek enough to want a self-built Ruby on non-POSIX platforms (e.g. Windows), getting a POSIX environment can’t be that hard. (I trust you don’t need any hints on that.) Moving to rake instead of make might be of benefit though if it lets you get rid of some spaces-in-pathnames woes. (Since you don’t have a string evaluated by a shell at umpty barely predictable spots, something for which I’d like to stab people responsible for Unix shells into vulnerable places with plastic forks many times.) But it’s still not going all away yet, e.g. the autotools remain. I just don’t see a full rewrite both coming anytime soon, and since I doubt one would be doable without more or less a full Ruby install, I don’t see much benefit as opposed to just going as far as you can push the (presumably trivial to build) miniruby. David V. ---
**Author:** ![cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058/7 "2006-11-07T10:44:07Z")
so conclusion: shipping rake.rb with the ruby source, and using it rake as build system. this would force us to ship ready made scripts for building miniruby first (to bootstrap in case no ruby is found on the machine) – so rake can be executed using miniruby. pro’s: - ditch autoconf and make (and the problems they come with) - more self contained - probably easier to maintain con’s: - we “need us to ship ready made scripts for building miniruby”, how to make these? - we have to change (something that is not really broken); i don’t know if it counts as a con 😉 ---
**Author:** ![cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e0b2c6/32.png) [@cies](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-build-system/74058/8 "2006-11-07T10:44:29Z")
On 10/29/06, cies [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > so conclusion: > > shipping rake.rb with the ruby source, and using it rake as build > system. this would force us to ship ready made scripts for building > miniruby first (to bootstrap in case no ruby is found on the machine) This is already how it works.