'with-static-linked-ext' does what, now?

I had thought from readme.ext that configuring with the
‘–with-static-linked-ext’ argument would cause the extensions listed in
ext\config to be compiled into the interpreter such that they would not
need to be 'require’d when running scripts with that interpreter. This
seems not to be the case, so I’m wondering what this argument actually
does and if there is a way to do what I had thought it did.

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 06:03:10AM +0900, Khat H. wrote:

I had thought from readme.ext that configuring with the
‘–with-static-linked-ext’ argument would cause the extensions listed in
ext\config to be compiled into the interpreter such that they would not
need to be 'require’d when running scripts with that interpreter. This
seems not to be the case, so I’m wondering what this argument actually
does and if there is a way to do what I had thought it did.

I’d guess it means that the libraries on which the interpreter depends
are statically compiled with it so that if you want to move the
interpreter (for instance) you don’t have to move a bunch of libraries
along with it, or otherwise account for a change in the relative
locations of interpreter and libraries, and so that changes in the
libraries on the system separate from the interpreter will not break the
interpreter. Considering I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking,
though, I suppose I might misunderstand what you’re asking.

It’s regarding the configure options when building Ruby. What I’m
wanting to do is have some of the standard lib files automatically
compiled into the interpreter module. For instance, building in the
socket library so that it would no longer be necessary to “require
‘socket’” in order to use the socket lib.

I had thought that this was what the mentioned option would do but it
would seem not to be the case.

Khat H. wrote in post #1040133:

It’s regarding the configure options when building Ruby. What I’m
wanting to do is have some of the standard lib files automatically
compiled into the interpreter module. For instance, building in the
socket library so that it would no longer be necessary to “require
‘socket’” in order to use the socket lib.

I had thought that this was what the mentioned option would do but it
would seem not to be the case.

Ruby README, section “How to compile and install”

Point #4.

Luis L.

Is it even possible to compile and use a completely static ruby variant
which is as independent on possible on host libraries?

I love statically compiled applications especially about base or core
system stuff (like make or coreutils, I don’t mind shared libraries for
huge beasts like openoffice)

Luis L. wrote in post #1040251:

Ruby README, section “How to compile and install”

Point #4.

Luis L.

Yes, I had already removed the comment marks from the appropriate lines.
Thank you, though.

Marc H. wrote in post #1040263:

Is it even possible to compile and use a completely static ruby variant
which is as independent on possible on host libraries?

I love statically compiled applications especially about base or core
system stuff (like make or coreutils, I don’t mind shared libraries for
huge beasts like openoffice)

I’d really like this implementation to be a standalone exe, but in
addition to this problem I’m also having a bit of trouble with using the
static lib rather than the dll lib. While I can get the core
interpreter to run with the static lib, it breaks ‘require’ and causes
compiler warnings when I refer to variables that would normally be in
the dll such as ‘rb_cObject’ and ‘rb_eTypeError’.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs