Forum: Ruby on Rails What version of rails am I running?

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.
D7e150e675abb80df7659fe14e7ac0a0?d=identicon&s=25 Kedar Mhaswade (kedarmhaswade)
on 2009-01-19 01:24
Sorry to ask a question that appears like the one posed by a n00b.
(Maybe I am going blind, seriously).

I have searched the forum for it, but couldn't find it.

How can I tell which version of rails I am running? Doing "rails -v"
fails. That's another question -- why does it fail -- why can't it tell
me the version string?

-Kedar
81b61875e41eaa58887543635d556fca?d=identicon&s=25 Frederick Cheung (Guest)
on 2009-01-19 01:55
(Received via mailing list)
On 19 Jan 2009, at 00:24, Kedar Mhaswade wrote:

>
In what way does it fail ?
That aside, rails -v tells you what the latest version of rails on
your computer is, which isn't the same thing as what version your
rails apps are running.
That can be controlled by
- having RAILS_GEM_VERSION set to something in environment.rb
- having rails frozen into vendor/rails

when you run script/console or script/server it should tell you what
version of rails its loading.

Fred
D7e150e675abb80df7659fe14e7ac0a0?d=identicon&s=25 Kedar Mhaswade (kedarmhaswade)
on 2009-01-19 02:13
Frederick Cheung wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2009, at 00:24, Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>
>>
> In what way does it fail ?
> That aside, rails -v tells you what the latest version of rails on
> your computer is, which isn't the same thing as what version your
> rails apps are running.
> That can be controlled by
> - having RAILS_GEM_VERSION set to something in environment.rb
> - having rails frozen into vendor/rails
>
> when you run script/console or script/server it should tell you what
> version of rails its loading.
>
> Fred

Thank you. But I don't think rails -v works. I think I have rails 2.0.2
or something like that (and that's what I am trying to ascertain) but on
my Ubuntu here is what happens:
kedar@kedar-laptop:~/Projects/ror/people$ which rails
/usr/bin/rails
kedar@kedar-laptop:~/Projects/ror/people$ rails -v
getopt: invalid option -- v
Terminating...

-Kedar
44391f94143d129bdfdcd8b52aa51674?d=identicon&s=25 Schalk Neethling (Guest)
on 2009-01-19 02:20
(Received via mailing list)
Hi there Kedar,

Try script/about or, alternatively you can do a gem list. If you have
only one version of rails installed gem list will indicate this.

HTH,
Schalk
6d3c187a8b3ef53b08e3e7e8572c4fea?d=identicon&s=25 Jeremy McAnally (Guest)
on 2009-01-19 02:25
(Received via mailing list)
Yes, Ubuntu puts their own Rails binscript (written in *bash*.  ugh!)
in there because apparently they hate you and the whole of the Rails
community for some reason.

Try something like "rails --version".  And file a bug with Ubuntu
because they're the ones who maintain their stupid script.

--Jeremy

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Kedar Mhaswade
<rails-mailing-list@andreas-s.net> wrote:
>> - having RAILS_GEM_VERSION set to something in environment.rb
> kedar@kedar-laptop:~/Projects/ror/people$ which rails
>
--
http://jeremymcanally.com/
http://entp.com/
http://omgbloglol.com

My books:
http://manning.com/mcanally/
http://humblelittlerubybook.com/ (FREE!)
247cd3d37084a3d6794076207bd9fbd7?d=identicon&s=25 Bobnation (Guest)
on 2009-01-19 02:40
(Received via mailing list)
To go one step farther, I would recommend installing RubyGems from
source and then installing Rails through RubyGems. Much better
situation.

On Jan 18, 7:24 pm, "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcana...@gmail.com>
D7e150e675abb80df7659fe14e7ac0a0?d=identicon&s=25 Kedar Mhaswade (kedarmhaswade)
on 2009-01-19 04:20
Bobnation wrote:
> To go one step farther, I would recommend installing RubyGems from
> source and then installing Rails through RubyGems. Much better
> situation.
>
> On Jan 18, 7:24�pm, "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcana...@gmail.com>

Maybe then http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Installation should
prefer RubyGems installation to "apt-get install ruby" (i.e. swap the
order).

-Kedar
D7e150e675abb80df7659fe14e7ac0a0?d=identicon&s=25 Kedar Mhaswade (kedarmhaswade)
on 2009-01-19 16:00
Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
> Bobnation wrote:
>> To go one step farther, I would recommend installing RubyGems from
>> source and then installing Rails through RubyGems. Much better
>> situation.
>>
>> On Jan 18, 7:24�pm, "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcana...@gmail.com>
>
> Maybe then http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Installation should
> prefer RubyGems installation to "apt-get install ruby" (i.e. swap the
> order).
>
> -Kedar

I think Ubuntu screws this up further because apparently their rails
script does not identify -d mysql to mean database to use. Instead, it
treats it as a folder, apparently, for example, if I did:
$> rails -d mysql people            => this rails is from apt-get
install rails

I get two folders created: "mysql" and "people".

Instead, if I installed RubyGems and did gem update --system and then
used the rails from there, it works better. Unfortunately, this rails
script is located in /var/lib/gems/1.8/bin and the Ubuntu (faulty)
script is in /usr/bin. So, I need to use /var/lib/gems/1.8/bin/ before
/usr/bin in my PATH!

I think the community should be aware of this.

Thank you!
-Kedar
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.