Forum: Ruby minimal ruby install

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.
903de3fe51f14392609e28e82e1b1c6c?d=identicon&s=25 Rick Fiorentino (rickf)
on 2009-01-26 16:07
Hi All,

I submitted a similar request over on the rails forum, but feel this is
probably the more appropriate place, sorry for any duplication.

Is there an embedded version of ruby available? Or is there a way to
determine the required libraries for a rails application to make a
minimal footprint distribution of the ruby and rails libs etc? Bearing
in mind low memory usage and disk space considerations.

As a little background, we deploy on server class machines and are
looking into thin clients and embedded possibilities.

Finally, if I make my own minimal distribution I certainly do not want
to violate any licensing etc...any concerns here?

Any comments or guidance would be appreciated.

thanks,
Rick
86e33dee4a89a8879a26487051c216a8?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Fellinger (Guest)
on 2009-01-26 17:15
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Rick Fiorentino
<rfiorentino@charter.net> wrote:
> As a little background, we deploy on server class machines and are
> looking into thin clients and embedded possibilities.
>
> Finally, if I make my own minimal distribution I certainly do not want
> to violate any licensing etc...any concerns here?
>
> Any comments or guidance would be appreciated.

minimal footprint and rails?
just did a quick grep and rails depends on around 45 libraries from
stdlib and pretty much every byte of ruby core (which is why it's a
nice testcase for new ruby implementations), are you sure you don't
want to go for something more lightweight?

^ manveru
903de3fe51f14392609e28e82e1b1c6c?d=identicon&s=25 Rick Fiorentino (rickf)
on 2009-01-26 17:25
> just did a quick grep and rails depends on around 45 libraries from
> stdlib and pretty much every byte of ruby core (which is why it's a
> nice testcase for new ruby implementations), are you sure you don't
> want to go for something more lightweight?
>
> ^ manveru

Right...good question. At a minimum I need to support DB access and
remote connectivity on the thin clients or embedded systems. The remote
connectivity can be me writing a multi-threaded server and processing
commands in a web service-ish way or including a lightweight HTTP server
if practical. The DB access could be DBI based stuff as well versus
using Active Record.

So one approach is compiling Ruby I suppose for each platform required,
including a minimal set of libs etc.

I am really looking for input to see what I am getting myself involved
in. It may be that using Ruby for this implementation is not ideal.

I would certainly consider different technologies, I am involved with
Ruby right now an was curious if it is practical.

Thanks for the input,
Rick
B33ea5c12d767bfd1253940a960274f5?d=identicon&s=25 Tim Hunter (timhunter)
on 2009-01-26 18:29
Rick Fiorentino wrote:
> I would certainly consider different technologies, I am involved with
> Ruby right now an was curious if it is practical.

I love Ruby, but for embedded applications you might check out Lua. I
don't know if Lua will have all the libraries you need, though.

http://www.lua.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_(programming_language)
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.